Kerala High Court
Bindu P.P vs State Of Kerala on 29 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 9TH MAGHA, 1942
WP(C).No.19588 OF 2020(W)
PETITIONER:
BINDU P.P.
AGED 50 YEARS
L.P.S.A., THIRUVAL U.P.SCHOOL, THIRUVAL, KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.M.VIJAYAKUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF EDUCATION
DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION, JAGATHY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
KANNUR - 670 001.
4 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
PANOOR - 670 692.
5 THE MANAGER, THIRUVAL U.P.SCHOOL
PANOOR, ELANKODE P.O., KANNUR - 670 692.
BY ADV. SHRI. BEJOY JOSEPH P.J.
SRI.P.M.MANOJ - SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29.01.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.19588 OF 2020(W)
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who is working as a Lower Primary
School Teacher in the services of Thiruval U.P.School,
Kannur, managed by the 5th respondent - Manager, has
approached this Court impugning Exts.P6 and P7, as per
which, she has been mulcted with liability, on the allegation
that she had made certain bogus admissions to the School in
question.
2. The petitioner says that an inspection by the Super
Check Cell found that a student by name, Fathimul Najila
M.P was not studying in the School, though she was shown in
the roll; but that this was properly explained by saying that
said student was admitted in the first standard on 01.06.2016
- with admission No.5753 and was promoted to the second
standard, when her parents requested for Transfer
Certificate and that she consequently, left the School on
04.07.2017 to join another School.
3. The petitioner says that even though these facts
are documented by proper evidence, the Educational
WP(C).No.19588 OF 2020(W)
Authorities and the Government refused to look into it and
have now mulcted her with liability on the specious allegation
that she had made a bogus admission to the School. The
petitioner says that even though she had produced all these
documents to substantiate the case before the competent
Educational Authorities, Ext.P4 statutory Revision filed by
her has been rejected by the Government alleging that these
had not been so and therefore, that it cannot be looked into.
4. The petitioner submits that the finding of the
Super Check Cell, which visited the School on 13.10.2017
and 07.02.2018, that the student in question was absent is
completely without basis on account of the afore facts and
therefore, that no action could have been taken against her;
and further that the finding of the Educational Authority in
Ext.P6 order that the Transfer Certificate in question is a
bogus one is also without any verifiable or justifiable cause,
having been entered into without any proper application of
mind. The petitioner, therefore, prays that the impugned
orders be set aside.
5. In addition to the afore contentions, the learned
WP(C).No.19588 OF 2020(W)
counsel for the petitioner, Sri.M.Vijayakumar, submitted that
in any event of the matter, no action could have been taken
against his client in view of the fact that, under Section 12A
of the Kerala Education Act, even though the Authorised
Officer of the Government is vested with the powers to take
disciplinary action against any teacher and to impose
penalties specified therein, the proviso to it insists that
before exercising such powers, the Authority must intimate
the Manager regarding the circumstances leading to such
proposed action and to give him/her a reasonable opportunity
of initiating a disciplinary enquiry. The learned counsel relied
upon the judgment of this Court in Kishore v. State of
Kerala [2019 (4) KLT 155] in substantiation of his afore
contention. Sri.M.Vijayakumar concluded by arguing that
since these provisions have been blatantly violated in this
case, the impugned orders are without legs to stand on and
reiteratingly prays that same be set aside.
6. The learned Senior Government Pleader,
Sri.P.M.Manoj, in response, submitted that, as is evident
from the impugned orders, the Super Check Cell found that
WP(C).No.19588 OF 2020(W)
on the two days they had visited the School, namely on
13.10.2017 and 07.02.2018, the student was absent and that
though no documents were produced before the competent
Educational Authorities by the petitioner to show that the
student was in School and had moved away by obtaining a
Transfer Certificate on 04.07.2017. He submitted that the
Educational Authorities verified the Transfer Certificate and
found that same had not been prepared or settled in a proper
manner and therefore, it was thus justifiably concluded that
it is a fabricated document. The learned Senior Government
Pleader, therefore, submitted that the impugned orders are
without error, particularly because Government has clearly
recorded in Ext.P6 order that the petitioner had not
produced any of the relevant documents before the
Educational Authorities. He thus prayed that this writ
petition be dismissed.
7. When I evaluate the afore submissions, it is
indubitable that the sole allegation against the petitioner is
that she was in charge of the Class in question and
therefore, that she was aware that the student by name
WP(C).No.19588 OF 2020(W)
Fathimul Najila M.P. was not available on the rolls. The
reason why the Super Check Cell came to this conclusion is
because this student was not available in the School on both
the dates when the inspection had been conducted.
However, the petitioner explains this by saying that the
student was available and that she left the School only on
04/07/2017, on the strength of a Transfer Certificate issued
by the School. However, these facts have not been verified
by any of the competent Authorities and in fact,
Government only says that the relevant documents had not
been produced before the Educational Authority at the time
when Ext.P6 order had been issued. However, the petitioner
contests this specifically by contending that all documents
had been produced, but they were not looked into by the
Authorities properly.
8. That apart, as rightly stated by
Shri.M.Vijayakumar, going by the provisions of Sections 12A
of the Kerala Education Act, action against the petitioner
could have been taken only after following the provisions of
the proviso therein. The impugned order does not show that
WP(C).No.19588 OF 2020(W)
any such opportunity had been given to the Manager and for
that reason also I must say that the impugned orders cannot
find favour of this Court, without further scrutiny.
In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition
and set aside Ext.P6; with a concomitant direction to the
competent secretary of the 1 st respondent State of Kerala to
reconsider the petitioner's Revision after affording her an
opportunity of being heard - either physically or through
video conferencing - and on producing all relevant
documents, leading to an appropriate order thereon, as
expeditiously as is possible.
Needless to say, while completing the afore exercise
Government shall advert to the ratio in Kishore (supra)
and specifically the petitioner's contention in law that the
provisions of Section 12A of the Kerala Education Act have
been violated.
SD/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
rp/MC JUDGE
WP(C).No.19588 OF 2020(W)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 15/05/2018.
EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 23/06/2018
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.S.C./62/2018/K.K.D. DATED 01/12/2018 ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REVISION DATED 26/12/2018
FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE TRANSFER CERTIFICATE.
EXHIBIT P6 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(P) NO.2391/20
DATED 06/08/2020.
EXHIBIT P7 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 26/08/2019
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE
COURT IN WA NO.2552/2015 DATED 13/8/2019
