Kerala High Court
K.I.Shanidha vs State Of Kerala on 1 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2021 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 10395 OF 2020
PETITIONER:
K.I.SHANIDHA,
HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER (PHYSICAL SCIENCE),
SEETHI SAHIB MEMORIAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
AZHIKODE, KODUNGALLOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 666.
BY ADV P.M.PAREETH
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014.
3 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT -680 001.
4 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT -680 121.
5 MANAGER, SEETHI SAHIB MEMORIAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
AZHIKODE, KODUNGALLOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT -680 666.
6 REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION,
EDAPPALLY RAGHAVAN PILLAI ROAD, DEVANKULANGARA,
ERNAKULAM 682 024.
7 V.A. RAMLATH, HSST (MALAYALAM),
SEETHI SAHIB MEMORIAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
AZHIKODE, KODUNGALLOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT -680 666.
WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases
-2-
8 NASEEHA,
HSST (COMPUTER APPLICATION ON DAILY WAGES),
SEETHI SAHIB MEMORIAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
AZHIKODE, KODUNGALLOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680
666.
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
SRI.K.A.MANZOOR ALI
SRI. P.M.MANOJ - SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 01.07.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).6352/2020,
35870/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases
-3-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2021 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 6352 OF 2020
PETITIONER:
K.I.SHANIDHA,
HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER (PHYSICAL SCIENCE),
SEETHI SAHIB MEMORIAL HIGH SCHOOL, AZHIKODE,
KODUNGALLOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 666.
BY ADV P.M.PAREETH
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.
3 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 001.
4 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
IRINJALAKUDA,
THRISUSR DISTRICT-680 121.
5 MANAGER,
SEETHI SAHIB MEMORIAL HIGH SCHOOL, AZHIKODE,
KODUNGALLOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 666.
WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases
-4-
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.M.MANOJ, SR.GP
V.A.MUHAMMED
M.SAJJAD
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 01.07.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).10395/2020 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases
-5-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2021 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 35870 OF 2019
PETITIONER:
K.I.SHANIDHA,
HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER (PHYSICAL SCIENCE),
SEETHI SAHIB MEMORIAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
AZHIKODE, KODUNGALLOOR,
THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 666.
BY ADV P.M.PAREETH
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.
3 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 001.
4 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 121.
5 MANAGER,
SEETHI SAHIB MEMORIAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
AZHIKODE, KODUNGALLOOR,
THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 666.
WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases
-6-
6 REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION,
EDAPPALLY RAGHAVAN PILLAI ROAD, DEVANKULANGARA,
ERNAKULAM - 682 024.
7 V.A.RAMLATH,
HSST (MALAYALAM), SEETHI SAHIB MEMORIAL HIGHER
SECONDARY SCHOOL, AZHIKODE, KODUNGALLOOR,
THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 666.
8 NASEEHA,
HSST (COMPUTER APPLICATION ON DAILY WAGES),
SEETHI SAHIB MEMORIAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
AZHIKODE, KODUNGALLOOR,
THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 666.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.M.MANOJ, SR.GP
SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
SRI.K.A.MANZOOR ALI
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 01.07.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).10395/2020 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases
-7-
JUDGMENT
[WP(C) Nos.10395/2020, 6352/2020, 35870/2019]
The petitioner in these three cases - which
have been heard and disposed of together on
account of the common factual circumstances and
the entwined nature of the reliefs sought - is a
High School Teacher (HST) working in 'Seethi Sahib
Memorial Higher Secondary School', Trissur.
2. Among the afore three Writ Petitions,
W.P(C)No.6352/2020 has been filed by the
petitioner impugning the orders imposing
punishment against her, based on a disciplinary
action initiated on the allegation that she had
committed various acts of misconduct. As far as
W.P(C)No.35870/2019 and W.P(C)No.10395/2020 are
concerned, the petitioner has approached this
Court impugning the proceedings of the competent
Educational Authorities refusing to appoint her
'by transfer' as Higher Secondary School Teacher
WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases
(HSST) in Computer Applications, solely on the
ground that she had already suffered a punishment
after disciplinary enquiry.
3. The petitioner asserts that the punishment
imposed against her is illegal; and consequently,
that denial of appointment to her as an HSST by
the Manager, while favouring two other teachers,
namely Smt.V.A.Ramlath and Smt.Naseeha, is
unlawful and thus prays that she be appointed as
HSST in Computer Applications from the date on
which the vacancy arose, namely 01.06.2019.
4. I have heard Sri.P.M.Pareeth - learned
counsel for the petitioner in these three cases;
Sri.Mansoor Ali - learned counsel appearing for
Smt.Ramlath and Smt.Naseeha (who have been arrayed
as respondents in these three cases);
Smt.P.A.Jenzia - learned counsel for the Manager
of the School and Sri.P.M.Manoj - learned Senior
Government Pleader appearing for the official
WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases
respondents.
5. Sri.P.M.Pareeth commenced the submissions
by saying that it is solely because his client had
been subjected to an unfair punishment, that she
had been denied 'by Transfer' appointment by the
Manager of the School. He showed me Ext.P5 in
W.P(C)No.35870/2019 communication of the Manager,
which states unequivocally that his client is not
entitled to be appointed 'by Transfer' as HSST,
solely because she had been subjected to a
disciplinary enquiry and imposed with a
punishment. He, thereafter, pointed out that, in
the report along with Ext.P5, the Manager has
recorded that, though the petitioner is qualified
to be considered for appointment 'by Transfer',
she is not deserving the same, because she had
behaved in a manner unbecoming of a Teacher and
consequently, imposed with a punishment. He,
therefore, submitted that if this Court is to
WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases
find, in W.P(C)No.6352/2020, that the punishment
imposed against his client is illegal, then denial
of promotion to her would axiomatically have to be
declared as being unlawful. He, therefore, prayed
that W.P(C)No.6352/2020 be heard first.
6. Sri.Pareeth, thereafter, proceeded to show
me that the disciplinary action against the
petitioner began with Ext.P1 in
W.P(C)No.6352/2020, wherein, the allegations made
against her were as under:
1. That, while holding the post of Teacher
Educator, SSM TTI, Azhikode, you failed to
perform to the best of your abilities the
teaching and other items of work entrusted
to you.
2. That, you being the first Assistant,
failed to assist the principal in the
teaching curriculum activities and to
maintain the general discipline of the
school.
3. That you behaved towards your colleagues
and the principal of the institution in
the manner grossly unbecoming of a
teacher.
4. That your said actions tantamount to grave
dereliction of duty, disobedience and
official misconduct warranting
disciplinary action as contemplated under
Ch.XIVA Kerala Education Rules 1959.
He submitted that when Ext.P1 Memo of Charges
WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases
was thus given to his client, she responded to it
through Ext.P2 explanation and obviously,
therefore, an enquiry ought to have been conducted
by the competent Educational Authority, as per
Rule 75, Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education
Rules (KER for short). He then proceeded to say
that, even though the Manager requested for such
an enquiry, the District Educational Officer
(DEO), Irinjalakkuda, did not conduct it under
Rule 75, as is required under the KER, but settled
Ext.P3 proceedings without finding any of the
allegations in Ext.P1 to have been found proved,
but then impelling certain other allegations
against the petitioner and directing the Manager
to take disciplinary action, after obtaining
necessary permission from the Authorities.
7. Sri.P.M.Pareeth vehemently asserted that
Ext.P2 cannot be construed to be a report under
Rule 75, Chapter XIVA of the KER, based on Ext.P1
WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases
show-cause notice. He added that, perhaps being
fully aware of this, the Manager proceeded to
conduct an enquiry of his own, as if he was
competent to act under Rule 75 of the KER and then
issued Ext.P4, holding the charges in Ext.P1 to
have been proved against his client, thus awarding
a punishment of withholding two increments without
cumulative effect.
8. Sri.P.M.Pareeth submitted that since the
entire process leading to Ext.P4 was vitiated from
the stand point of KER, his client had no other
option but to approach the Deputy Director of
Education, Trissur, by preferring a Statutory
Appeal, namely Ext.P5 produced along with
WP(C)No.6352/2020; but that the said Authority,
instead of considering the same on its merits,
kept it pending and in blatant violation of his
statutory obligations, directed the DEO to ratify
Ext.P4 punishment imposed by the Manager. He
WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases
referred to Ext.P7 order of the Deputy Director of
Education (DDE) to substantiate the afore and then
added that the DEO consequently, ratified Ext.P4
through Ext.P8 order of his and that the DDE,
almost as a consequential order, rejected Ext.P5
appeal without assigning any reason. He submitted
that his client, therefore, preferred a Statutory
Revision before the Government, namely Ext.P10 in
WP(C)No.6352/2020 and that when the same was not
considered by them, she approached this Court to
obtain Ext.P11 judgment produced along with
WP(C)No.6352/2020, whereby, Government was
directed to consider the said Revision within a
time frame.
9. Sri.P.M.Pareeth finally submitted that in
spite of the specific contentions impelled by his
client, the Government issued Ext.P12 order,
remitting the matter to the Manager, not with
respect to the disciplinary enquiry, but only as
WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases
to the nature of punishment imposed; and that the
Manager has now issued Ext.P13 in the said Writ
Petition, imposing a punishment of withholding one
increment without cumulative effect. Mr.Pareeth
thus vehemently submitted that Exts.P12 and P13
orders in WP(C)No.6352/2020 are illegal and prayed
that same be set aside; and consequentially that
other two Writ Petitions be allowed, directing the
competent Authorities, including the Manager, to
appoint his client - Smt.Shanidha 'by Transfer' to
the vacancy available in the year 2019.
10. Smt.P.A.Jenzia-learned counsel appearing
for the Manger of the school, replied to the afore
submissions of Mr.Pareeth by saying that the
imputations against Smt.Shanidha were extremely
grave and totally unbecoming of her stature as a
Teacher in the school. She tried to impress upon
this Court, by referring to the various
allegations made in Exts.P1, P3 and P4 in
WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases
WP(C)No.6352/2020, that Smt.Shanidha was prone to
insubordination, bad behaviour, irreverence to
Authority as also to certain other conduct not
suited to a teacher. She, therefore, submitted
that the Manager was completely within his
competence to have proposed punishment through
Ext.P4 in WP(C)No.6352/2020 and that he fairly
modified it, through Ext.P13 in the said Writ
Petition, in compliance with the directions of the
Government. She concluded her submissions by
saying that even the Government in Ext.P12 found
the allegations against the petitioner to be
warranting a punishment and did not interfere with
the disciplinary action, but only directed the
Manager to reduce the same, thus making it
indubitable that she was not entitled to be
appointed 'by Transfer' to the vacancy available
in the year 2019. She, therefore, prayed that all
these Writ Petitions be dismissed.
WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases
11. Sri.Mansoor Ali - learned counsel
appearing for the other two teachers, namely
Smt.Ramlath and Smt.Naseeha, adopted most of the
submissions of Smt.P.A.Jenzia, supplementing it by
asserting that no school can countenance the
conduct of Smt.Shanidha and therefore, that the
Manager was well within his competence to have
imposed a suitable punishment upon her. He added
that in the year 2019, there were two vacancies
available, to which Smt.Ramlath was appointed 'by
Transfer' and Smt.Naseeha directly. He submitted
that their appointments have now been approved by
the competent Educational Authorities and affirmed
by the Government in Ext.P11 order produced in
WP(C)No.35870/2019; and therefore, prayed that
these Writ Petitions be dismissed.
12. I have given a great amount of thought to
the opposing submissions made on behalf of the
parties as afore.
WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases
13. As rightly stated by Sri.P.M.Pareeth, this
Court is first enjoined to consider whether the
punishment imposed upon the petitioner was valid
and proper, since on it would pirouette the
question whether it was justified on the part of
the Manager to have denied her appointment 'by
Transfer' in the year 2019. This is indubitable
because, as is evident from Ext.P5 in
WP(C)No.35870/2019, the petitioner had been denied
promotion solely because she had been imposed with
a punishment of withholding one increment without
cumulative effect.
14. I, therefore, first propose to consider
the merits of WP(C)No.6352/2020.
15. The records of this case reveal that
petitioner was asked to show cause to the
allegations extracted earlier in this judgment and
that she did so through Ext.P2. Upon receipt of
Ext.P2, the Manager appears to have found it to be
WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases
unsatisfactory and to have requested an enquiry
under Rule 75 Chapter XIVA of the KER, to be
conducted by the competent Educational Authority.
Going by the provisions of this Rule, the
Educational Authority ought to have conducted an
enquiry and to have concluded it, after recording
its findings on each of them. It is only
thereafter that the Manager could have imposed a
penalty as specified in sub-rules (iv) and (viii)
of Rule 75, Chapter XIVA of the KER.
16. However, when one goes through Ext.P3
order, it is rather unmistakable that the DEO,
Irinjalakkuda, did not answer any of the charges
mentioned in Ext.P1, though he records the
depositions and testimonies of the various
witnesses. Interestingly, he does not find any of
the allegations in Ext.P1 to be proved, but
digresses into certain other aspects and new
allegations against the petitioner, pending such
WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases
enquiry. He has held in Ext.P3 - without finding
the petitioner to be guilty of any of the charges
in Ext.P1 show-cause - that she has irreverence
for the Educational Authorities; that she had
illegally video-recorded the enquiry proceedings;
that she had refused to subscribe her signature to
the enquiry proceedings etc, thus concluding that
her actions are not suitable for a teacher, who is
responsible for forging the next generation. After
finding as afore, the DEO, in Ext.P3, directed the
Manager to initiate a disciplinary enquiry, for
which he was also directed to take necessary
permission.
17. It is thus luculent that Ext.P3 cannot
satisfy the attributes of an enquiry report under
Rule 75, Chapter XIVA of the KER; and in fact, on
a close reading of it, it can leave no doubt that
what the DEO intended was that the Manager must
initiate new disciplinary action based on a fresh
WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases
show-cause notice against the petitioner on the
allegations mentioned in the said proceedings.
18. However, the Manager appears to have
misunderstood Ext.P3 completely and he proceeded
unilaterally to conduct a separate enquiry,
purportedly under Rule 75 of the KER, on the
allegations contained in Ext.P1 show-cause notice.
He thus prepared Ext.P4 report - which is a very
detailed one, containing the examination of the
witnesses and assessment of their testimonies -
thus finding the petitioner guilty of all charges
in Ext.P1 and imposing her punishment of
withholding of two increments without cumulative
effect. Ext.P4 makes it without doubt that finding
of guilt has been entered into, not by any of the
Educational Authorities but by the Manager, thus
he empowering himself to impose a punishment
abovementioned.
19. Without need for much expatiation, it is
WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases
clear that Ext.P4 could not normally have obtained
imprimatur unless the Manager was able to convince
the Educational Authorities that imposition of
punishment as made by him was as per the statutory
scheme of Rule 75, Chapter XIVA of the KER.
20. However, even though the petitioner
challenged Ext.P4 before the DDE through Ext.P5,
he chose not to issue orders on it, but directed
the DEO, through Ext.P7, to ratify Ext.P4, which
was then done by the said Authority through
Ext.P8. Very strangely, after Ext.P8 order was
issued by the DEO, the DDE rejected Ext.P5 appeal
through Ext.P9.
21. Justifiably, therefore, the petitioner
filed a Revision before the Government, invoking
Rule 92, Chapter XIVA of the KER; and when it was
not decided within time, she obtained Ext.P11
judgment from this Court. It is, thereafter, that
Government issued Ext.P12 order in
WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases
WP(C)No.6352/2020, confirming the disciplinary
action against the petitioner, finding that her
contentions are without merits; but holding the
punishment imposed to be disproportionate, thus
directing the Manager to reconsider the same. The
Manager, thereafter, issued Ext.P13 order,
imposing the punishment of withholding one
increment without cumulative effect.
22. In the afore factual scenario, I am
constrained to opine that Government has not
considered any of the contentions of the
petitioner in its proper perspective. The question
whether Ext.P3 is a proper enquiry report under
Rule 75, Chapter XIVA of the KER; whether the
Manager was competent to issue a proceeding like
Ext.P4 and whether the Manager would have imposed
a punishment without obtaining concurrence from
the Educational Authorities have been left without
being considered, in any manner, by the Government
WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases
and other Educational Authorities.
23. More serious is the turn of events in this
case when the DDE, before whom the petitioner had
preferred Ext.P5 appeal against Ext.P4, directed
the DEO to ratify Ext.P4 and then, when such
ratification was granted by the said Authority
through Ext.P8, rejected Ext.P5 appeal through
Ext.P9. It is unfortunate that the Government did
not see any of these aspects, but still proceeded
to issue Ext.P12 order merely saying that the
allegations against the petitioner are proved,
though not serious enough to warrant a punishment
of withholding two increments with cumulative
effect; and consequently directing the Manager to
impose a lesser one - which he did through Ext.P13
order.
24. It is, therefore, without any doubt in my
mind that the entire matter relating to the
disciplinary action against the petitioner will
WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases
have to be reconsidered by the Government.
25. Having concluded as afore with respect to
W.P.(C)No.6352 of 2020, I must now consider how
the other two writ petitions will have to be dealt
with.
26. As I have already indicated above, the
sole reason why the Manager has refused to appoint
the petitioner - Smt.K.I.Shanidha, 'by transfer'
to one of the available vacancies of HSST in the
School in the year 2019, is because she had
already been imposed with the punishment as
narrated above. This is clearly demonstrated in
Ext.P5 in W.P.(C)No.35870 of 2019, wherein, it is
also recorded that the petitioner had the minimum
qualification for being so appointed, but
disqualified because of the punishment imposed.
27. At this point, I must also record one of
the submissions of Smt.P.A.Jenzia, learned counsel
for the Manager, that the petitioner -
WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases
Smt.K.I.Shanidha was denied appointment 'by
transfer' in the year 2019 also because she was
not fully qualified and because she did not
produce the relevant documents before the
committee. However, this argument is completely
belied by Ext.P5 proceedings of the Manager
himself, wherein, as I have already said above,
he has unequivocally recorded that the petitioner
had the minimum qualification for being appointed,
but is not deserving to be considered because of
her alleged proved misconduct.
28. It is thus apodictic that if the
Government is to find that the punishment imposed
against the petitioner - Smt.K.I.Shanidha is
perverse and capricious, then the competent
Authority must consider her claim for appointment
'by transfer' to one of the vacancies of HSST in
the School in the year 2019.
29. In W.P.(C)No.35870 of 2019, the petitioner
WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases
has specifically challenged Ext.P11 order of the
Government dated 30.11.2019, whereby the
appointment of Smt.Ramlath has been found to be
proper.
30. As far as W.P.(C)No.10395 of 2020 is
concerned, the petitioner challenges Exts.P14 and
P15 orders, as per which, Smt.Naseeha has been
appointed directly as an HSST in Computer
Application in the School in question; as also
Ext.P16 order granting approval to the appointment
of Smt.Ramlath.
31. That said, Ext.P11 in W.P.(C)No.35870 of
2019 has been issued by the Government approving
the appointment of Smt.Ramlath, again on the basis
that the petitioner - Smt.K.I.Shanidha has
suffered a punishment. It is on the same basis
that Ext.P14 appointment order of Smt.Naseeha has
been approved by the Regional Deputy Director of
Education, Ernakulam. It is also pertinent that
WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases
both Exts.P15 and P16 in W.P.(C)No.10395 of 2020
contains a condition that this will be subject to
the disputes raised by Smt.K.I.Shanidha and any
other deficiencies had been found in future.
32. In such circumstances, it is clear that
this Court cannot grant imprimatur to the orders
impugned in W.P.(C)No.35870 of 2019 and W.P.
(C)No.10395 of 2020, until the Government takes a
final decision relating to the punishment of the
petitioner - Smt.K.I.Shanidha. Obviously,
therefore, if the Government is to find that the
punishment against Smt.K.I.Shanidha is illegal,
then they will have to reconsider Ext.P11 in W.P.
(C)No.35870 of 2019 and the competent Authorities
must then review their action recorded in Exts.P15
and P16 in W.P.(C)No.10395 of 2020.
In the conspectus of the above, these writ
petitions are ordered as under:
(a) W.P.(C).No.6352 of 2020
WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases
is allowed and Exts.P12 and P13 are
set aside; with a consequential
direction to the Government to
reconsider Ext.P10 Revision of the
petitioner - Smt.K.I.Shanidha, after
affording her, as also the Manager of
the School, an opportunity of being
heard - either physically or through
video conferencing - thus culminating
in an appropriate order thereon, as
expeditiously as is possible, but not
later than three months from the date
of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
(b) W.P.(C)No.35870 of 2019
and W.P.(C)No.10395 of 2020 are
disposed of, directing the Government
to reconsider Ext.P11 in W.P.
WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases
(C)No.35870 of 2019, should they find
that the punishment against
Smt.K.I.Shanidha is improper. In
such event and consequently, the
Regional Director of Education,
Ernakulam will reconsider Exts.P15
and P16 orders of approval given to
Smt.Ramlath and Smt.Naseeha, as per
law. I, however, clarify that in such
scenario, if any orders to the
detriment of Smt.Ramlath or
Smt.Naseeha is proposed, then they
shall also be heard, apart from
Smt.K.I.Shanidha and the Manager, by
the competent Authorities, including
the Government and the resultant
orders will be issued after following
due procedure, expressly in terms of
the provisions of the KER.
WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases
(c) After the afore, if the
Government finds that the punishment
against the petitioner -
Smt.K.I.Shanidha is improper and that
she is entitled to be appointed 'by
transfer' to one of the vacancies in
the year 2019, it will also be
decided by the competent Educational
Authorities how Smt.Ramlath and
Smt.Naseeha can be accommodated,
subject to the availability of
vacancies.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
RR/akv
WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6352/2020
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE MEMO OF
CHARGES AND STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS
DATED 4.10.2017 ISSUED BY THE 5TH
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE WRITTEN
STATEMENT OF DEFENCE DATED 3.11.2017
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT
DATED 23.11.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
NO.110/SSMTTI/2017 DATED 3.5.2019.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED
21.5.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
27.5.2019 IN WP(C) NO.14469/2019.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
DATED 25.7.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
3.8.2019 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
5.8.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE REVISION
PETITION DATED 22.8.2019 SUBMITTED BY
WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
20.9.2019 IN WPC 24944/2019.
EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE GO(RT)
NO.755/2020/GEDN DATED 14.2.2020.
EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE PROCEEDING
NO.110/2017/SSMTTI DATED 24.2.2020
ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS :
EXT.R5a TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.G.O(MS)NO.14/2019/GEN EDN.DATED
6.2.2019.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 35870/2019
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE APPLICATION
DATED 04/04/2019 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF
MSC (INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY) DATED
30/7/2015 IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER
ISSUED BY MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
DATED 03/05/2019 ISSUED BY THE 5TH
RESPONDENT AWARDING THE PENALTY OF
WITHHOLDING TWO INCREMENTS WITHOUT
CUMULATIVE EFFECT.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
DATED 27/05/2019 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE THEN DIRECTOR OF
HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
28/06/2019 TOGETHER WITH PROCEEDINGS
DATED 28/06/2019 ISSUED BY THE 5TH
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION
DATED 30/06/2019 ISSUED BY THE 5TH
RESPONDENT IN THE MADHYAMAM DAILY DATED
30/06/2019.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
10/07/2019 IN W.P.(C) NO.18847/2019.
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
NO.ACD.A2/151214/2019/HSE DATED
18/11/2019 ISSUED BY THE JOINT DIRECTOR
WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases
OF GENERAL EDUCATION.
EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE REVISION
PETITION DATED 22/08/2019 SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE REVISION
PETITION DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE 7TH
RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE GO(RT)
NO.5255/2019/GEDN. DATED 30/11/2019.
EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE GO(MS)
NO.235(1)/2009/GEDN. DATED 05/12/2009.
EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
NO.16/2019/SSMHSS/DATED 13.12.2019
ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE TRUE ENGLISH
TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P3
EXHIBIT P15 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE TRUE ENGLISH
TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P4
EXHIBIT P16 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE TRUE ENGLISH
TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P5
EXHIBIT P17 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE TRUE ENGLISH
TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P6
EXHIBIT P18 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE TRUE ENGLISH
TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P8
EXHIBIT P19 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE POSTAL COVER
ENCLOSING THE EXHIBIT P11 ORDER WHICH
WAS DELIVERED ON THE PETITIONER ON
24.12.2019.
WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS :
EXT.R5a TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.G.O(MS)NO.14/2019/GEN EDN.DATED
6.2.2019.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10395/2020
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION
DATED 04.04.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF
MSC INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DATED
30.7.2015 IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER
ISSUED BY MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
DATED 03.052019 ISSUED BY THE 5TH
RESPONDENT AWARDING THE PENALTY OF
WITHHOLDING TWO INCREMENTS WITHOUT
CUMULATIVE EFFECT.
EXHIBIT P3 (A) A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.
755/2020/GEDN DATED 14.2.2020.
EXHIBIT P3 (B) A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
DATED 24.2.2020 ISSUED BY THE FIFTH
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
DATED 27.05.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE THEN DIRECTOR OF
HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED
28.06.2019 TOGETHER WITH PROCEEDINGS
DATED 28.06.2019 ISSUED BY THE 5TH
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTIFICATION
DATED 30.06.2019 ISSUED BY THE 5TH
RESPONDENT IN THE MADHYAMAM DAILY DATED
30.06.2019.
WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DAD
10.07.2019 IN WPC NO. 18847/2019.
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.
ACD.A2/151214/2019/HSE DATED 18.11.2019
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REVISION
PETITION DATED 22.08.2019 SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REVISION
PETITION DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE 7TH
RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE G.O.(RT), NO.
5255/2019/GEDN DATED 30.11.2019.
EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE GO (MS) NO.
235(1)2009 /GEDN DATED 05.12.2009.
EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED
13.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE 5TH
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPOINTMENT
ORDER DATED 13.08.2019 ISSUED BY THE
5TH RESPONDENT APPOINTING THE 8TH
RESPONDENT AS HSST COMPUTER
APPLICATION).
EXHIBIT P15 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
DATED 26.02.2020 ISSUED BY THE 6TH
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P16 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
DATED 05.02.2020 ISSUED BY THE 6TH
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P17 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases
21.11.2019 IN WPC NO. 31498/2019.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS :
EXT.R5a TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.G.O(MS)NO.14/2019/GEN EDN.DATED
6.2.2019.
EXT.R5b TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.B5/8833/2019
DATED 03.07.2020 ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
