Kerala High Court
Abdul Gafoor T P vs State Of Kerala on 3 July, 2025
Author: D. K. Singh
Bench: D. K. Singh
WP(C) NO. 10763 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:48446
"C.R."
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. K. SINGH
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2025 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 10763 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
ABDUL GAFOOR T P
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O.MUHAMMED KUTTY, JUNIOR LANGUAGE TEACHER ARABIC (UNDER SUSPENSION),
V.K.S.N.M.A.L.P. SCHOOL, VELLAMPURAM, KARAD P.O, VANDOOR, MALAPPURAM -
679 339 RESIDING AT THANDUPURAKKAL HOUSE, SHANTHINAGAR, VANIYAMBALAM
P.O, MALAPPURAM
BY ADVS.
SHRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
KUM.THULASI K. RAJ
SMT.CHINNU MARIA ANTONY
SMT.APARNA NARAYAN MENON
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695014
3 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
KOTTAPPADY DOWN HILL, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676519
WP(C) NO. 10763 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:48446
4 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICE, WANDOOR, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679328
5 ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICE, WANDOOR, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679328
6 THE MANAGER
V.K.S.N.M.A.L.P. SCHOOL, VELLAMPURAM, KARAD P.O, VANDOOR, MALAPPURAM, PIN
- 679339
7 THE HEADMASTER
V.K.S.N.M.A.L.P. SCHOOL, VELLAMPURAM, KARAD P.O, VANDOOR, MALAPPURAM, PIN
- 679339
BY ADVS.
SRI.RAJIT
SHRI.AJAIY BASKAR
OTHER PRESENT:
V.VENUGOPAL-GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING RESERVED ON 25.06.2025, THE COURT ON 03.07.2025
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 10763 OF 2025
3
2025:KER:48446
JUDGMENT
"C.R."
Education is preparation for life, and considering life a process of
continuing education. Education enables us to fix lifelong objectives
which require lifelong efforts to achieve and realise. The ancient system
of education was that of perfection, for the development of the mind and
soul of mankind. In the ancient education system, teachers were known
as Rishis, individuals who had lived a full life. Rishi's ashram was a
veritable Gurukul, where the people were loved and cared for as
members of the Guru's family. The Rishi represented not only the
matured worldly and scholarly wisdom but also high spiritual
realisation. The Guru/teacher was assigned high and exceptional
reverence. The Guru/teacher was the guide and teacher on the spiritual
path. A good teacher in the ancient system of Indian Education
interweaves his own life with the life of his people.
WP(C) NO. 10763 OF 2025
2025:KER:48446
1.1 John C Maxwell said, "Students don't care how much you know
until they know how much you care". Solomon Ortiz said, "Education is the
key to success in life, and teachers make a lasting impact on the lives of their
students". "They may forget what you said, but they will never forget how you
made them feel", - Carl W. Buehner. A teacher takes a hand, opens his
mind and touches the heart. Teachers are role models, inspirers,
influencers and touchstones in the early years of education. The teacher
is responsible for shaping future leaders by positively inspiring them to
be responsible community members. So, while one teaches and one
learns, the real lesson is always mutual respect.
1.2 The present case is where a teacher who is accused of sexually
assaulting a girl child aged 9 years, 6 months, and 9 days.
2. Heard Ms Thulasi K Raj, learned Counsel for the petitioner;
Mr Ajaiy Baskar, learned Counsel for the VKSNMALP School, and Mr V
Venugopal, learned Government Pleader for the State.
WP(C) NO. 10763 OF 2025
2025:KER:48446
Facts:
3. The petitioner has been working as a Junior Language
Teacher (Arabic) since 02.06.2003. An FIR as Crime No.234/2024 was
registered against him at Police Station Wandoor, Malapuram District,
for offences punishable under Section 354A(1)(i) read with Section
354A(2) of the Indian Penal code and Section 9(f) read with Section 10,
Section 9(1) read with Section 10, Section 9(m) read with Section 10 and
Section 9(p) read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act 2012.
3.1 The petitioner was arrested. However, later on he was
enlarged on bail. The victim in her statement recorded under Section
164 of the CrPC stated sexual abuse by the petitioner on 04.01.2023
between 11.15 am and 12 noon and several days thereafter in the
classroom of 4th A-Division of the School. The petitioner was suspended,
and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. After the
conclusion of the Inquiry, the Inquiry Report [Ext.P11] was submitted to
the Manager by the Inquiry Officer. The petitioner was issued a Memo
WP(C) NO. 10763 OF 2025
2025:KER:48446
of Charges in accordance with Rule 75 of Chapter XIV-A of Kerala
Education Rules. The Memo of Charges would read as under:
"a) That the Wandoor Police registered a POCSO case as crime
No.234/2024 and arrested the petitioner and produced him before the
Court and he was remanded on 11.03.2024, the same is a serious
dereliction of duty.
b) That the POCSO case registered against the petitioner shows serious
indiscipline on his part.
c) that the aforesaid caused damage to the reputation and goodwill of the
institution and the same was not bound to happen from the petitioner's
side.
d) That the petitioner is expected to act as a role model for others and
the conduct of the petitioner as aforesaid cannot be accepted and the
same causes damage to the institution."
4. During the inquiry, it has been revealed that the victim was
merely a 10-year-old child studying in the School, who disclosed to her
mother that the petitioner, the Arabic teacher in the School, during the
class of Arabic, held on the breast of the victim with sexual intention and
he continued this kind of action during Arabic classes while the child
was asked to read and stand near the petitioner, as per his instructions.
WP(C) NO. 10763 OF 2025
2025:KER:48446
The mother of the victim revealed the sexual assault meted out on the
child to the class teacher. The class teacher informed the headmaster,
which led to the filing of the FIR and the arrest of the petitioner.
4.1 After concluding the enquiry and considering the response
of the petitioner as per Rule 71 of Chapter XIV-A KER, the Manager
proposed the penalty of compulsory retirement as referred to in Rule
65(V) of Chapter XIV-A KER in accordance with Rule 75(XI) of Chapter
XIV-A KER. At this stage the petitioner has approached this Court in this
writ petition for setting aside the Inquiry Report and consequential
proceedings on the ground that the petitioner has been acquitted in the
criminal trial because the victim and her mother turned hostile.
Analysis:
5. I would not like to make the judgment verbose by citing a
catena of judgments on well-established legal positions that disciplinary
proceedings are based on the preponderance of probabilities, and the
strict rule of evidence is not applicable while conducting the disciplinary
WP(C) NO. 10763 OF 2025
2025:KER:48446
proceedings, as in the criminal trial. However, a few precedents are
taken note of hereunder:
Nand Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar1
6. This early Supreme Court case has laid down the principle
that an acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically lead to the
setting aside of a departmental inquiry. The court emphasised the
difference in the nature of proceedings and the standard of proof.
6.1 Paragraphs 19 and 20 of the judgment is extracted hereunder:
"19. Before dealing with the contentions canvassed, we may remind
ourselves of the principles, in point, crystallised by judicial decisions. The
first of these principles is that disciplinary proceedings before a domestic
tribunal are of a quasi-judicial character; therefore, the minimum
require- ment of the rules of natural justice is that the tribunal should
arrive at its conclusion on the basis of some evidence, i.e. evidential
material which with some degree of definiteness points to the guilt of the
delinquent in respect of the charge against him. Suspicion cannot be
allowed to take the place of proof even in domestic inquiries. As pointed
out by this Court in Union of India v. H. C. Goel, "the principle that in
punishing the guilty scrupulous care must be taken to see that the
(1978) 3 SCC 366
WP(C) NO. 10763 OF 2025
2025:KER:48446
innocent are not punished, applies as much to regular criminal trials as
to disciplinary enquiries held under the statutory rules".
20. The second principle, which is a corollary from the first, is, that if the
disciplinary inquiry has been conducted fairly without bias or
predilection, in accordance with the relevant disciplinary rules and the
Constitutional provisions, the order passed by such authority cannot be
interfered with in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution,
merely on the ground that it was based on evidence which would be
insufficient for conviction of the delinquent on the same charge at a
criminal trial."
Parameswaran Namboodiri v. State of Kerala2
7. The Court in this judgment has held that, simply because of
an acquittal in a criminal case, the disciplinary proceedings pending
against an officer cannot be dropped even if the facts which led to the
criminal case and the facts which gave rise to the disciplinary
proceedings are the same. Enforcement of criminal law through
criminal courts is different from disciplinary proceedings. So, the rule
of autrefois acquit is not available to the officer who is facing disciplinary
1981 KLT 231
WP(C) NO. 10763 OF 2025
2025:KER:48446
proceedings.
7.1 Paragraph 5 of the said is extracted hereunder:
"It is true that the 3rd respondent-teacher under suspension was
acquitted in the criminal case on the benefit of doubt. But the question is
what is the effect of this acquittal on the disciplinary proceedings which
was pending against him It is now settled law that simply because of an
acquittal in a criminal case the disciplinary proceedings pending against
that officer cannot be dropped even if the facts which led to the criminal
case and the facts which gave rise to the disciplinary proceedings are the
same. Enforcement of criminal law through criminal courts is different
from disciplinary proceedings. So, the rule of autrefois acquit is not
available to the officer who is facing a disciplinary proceeding. In this
view of the matter, the stand taken by the 2nd respondent-District
Educational Officer in Ext. P7 that the disciplinary proceedings against
the 3rd respondent need not be continued is nothing but wrong. By Ext
P- 9 the 1st respondent-State has directed the petitioner - Manager to
conduct the disciplinary proceedings. First of all, the Manager of a school
cannot conduct a disciplinary enquiry under R.75 Chap. 14-A of the K.E.R
The power is with the department and, as a matter of fact, the enquiry
was half way. The 1st respondent also has directed the reinstatement of
the teacher. When once permission to place the teacher under
suspension beyond 15 days has been given under R.67(8), Chap. 14-A of
the K.E.R, the teacher will have to continue under suspension till the
WP(C) NO. 10763 OF 2025
2025:KER:48446
culmination of the disciplinary proceedings. The scheme of the rules is
that and there is no indication in any of the rules which enables the
departmental authorities or the State Government to direct a
reinstatement of the teacher under suspension before the disciplinary
proceedings are over. In this view of the matter, the direction of the 1st
respondent in Ext. P9 to reinstate the 3rd respondent teacher and to
conduct the disciplinary proceedings if the petitioner Manager desires is
against the relevant rules in the K.E.R. Hence I set aside Exts P7 and P9. It
is for the 2nd respondent-District Educational Officer to continue the
disciplinary enquiry, complete the same as expeditiously as possible and
forward his report to the petitioner Manager. As the teacher is under
suspension for the last 5 years it is only proper that disciplinary
proceedings are completed without any further delay. The petitioner and
the 2nd respondent should do everything possible to complete the
disciplinary proceedings within 3 months from today."
Commissioner of Police, New Delhi v. Mehar Singh3
8. The Supreme Court has held that the nature of acquittal is a
necessary consideration, i.e., whether acquittal is on technical
grounds/not honourable. Quite often, criminal cases end in acquittal
because witnesses turn hostile. Such acquittals are not acquittals on
(2013) 7 SCC 685
WP(C) NO. 10763 OF 2025
2025:KER:48446
merit. Generally, as a rule, candidates whose acquittal is not honourable
are not suitable for government service and are to be avoided.
8.1 Paragraphs 24 and 25 of the said judgment reads as under:
"24. .......... We are aware that the question of co-relation between a
criminal case and a departmental enquiry does not directly arise here,
but, support can be drawn from the principles laid down by this Court in
connection with it because the issue involved is somewhat identical,
namely, whether to allow a person with doubtful integrity to work in the
department. While the standard of proof in a criminal case is the proof
beyond all reasonable doubt, the proof in a departmental proceeding is
preponderance of probabilities. Quite often criminal cases end in
acquittal because witnesses turn hostile. Such acquittals are not
acquittals on merit. An acquittal based on benefit of doubt would not
stand on a par with a clean acquittal on merit after a full-fledged trial,
where there is no indication of the witnesses being won over. In R.P.
Kapur v. Union of India this Court has taken a view that departmental
proceedings can proceed even though a person is acquitted when the
acquittal is other than honourable.
25. The expression "honourable acquittal" was considered by this Court
in S. Samuthiram. In that case this Court was concerned with a situation
where disciplinary proceedings were initiated against a police officer.
Criminal case was pending against him under Section 509 IPC and under
WP(C) NO. 10763 OF 2025
2025:KER:48446
Section 4 of the Eve-Teasing Act. He was acquitted in that case because of
the non-examination of key witnesses. There was a serious flaw in the
conduct of the criminal case. Two material witnesses turned hostile.
Referring to the judgment of this Court in RBI v. Bhopal Singh Panchal,
where in somewhat similar fact situation, this Court upheld a bank's
action of refusing to reinstate an employee in service on the ground that
in the criminal case he was acquitted by giving him benefit of doubt and,
therefore, it was not an honourable acquittal, this Court held that the
High Court was not justified in setting aside the punishment imposed in
the departmental proceedings. This Court observed that the expressions
"honourable acquittal", "acquitted of blame" and "fully exonerated" are
unknown to the Criminal Procedure Code or the Penal Code. They are
coined by judicial pronouncements. It is difficult to define what is meant
by the expression "honourably acquitted". This Court expressed that
when the accused is acquitted after full consideration of the prosecution
case and the prosecution miserably fails to prove the charges levelled
against the accused, it can possibly be said that the accused was
honourably acquitted."
9. The Supreme Court has reiterated many times that
disciplinary proceedings are independent of criminal proceedings. Even
if an employee is honourably acquitted in a criminal case, the employer
WP(C) NO. 10763 OF 2025
2025:KER:48446
can still proceed with or sustain a disciplinary action if there is sufficient
evidence to prove misconduct on a preponderance of probabilities.
10. The proposition is sound and legally supported. Disciplinary
proceedings are distinct from criminal proceedings, operating under
different standards of proof, rules of evidence, and objectives. An
acquittal in a criminal case, even if based on the victim and witness
turning hostile, does not automatically preclude or necessitate the
dismissal of concurrent or subsequent disciplinary proceedings
concerning the same underlying conduct. An acquittal in a criminal case
does not necessarily mean that the accused is innocent or that the
alleged misconduct did not occur. Therefore, an acquittal in one does not
automatically negate the findings or outcome of the other.
11. While the victim or witness turning hostile in a criminal trial
might weaken the prosecution's case to the extent of an acquittal, the
disciplinary authority can still evaluate all available evidence, including
the testimony of the hostile victim and witness (giving it the weight it
WP(C) NO. 10763 OF 2025
2025:KER:48446
deserves), other documentary evidence, and circumstantial evidence, to
determine if misconduct occurred on the lower civil standard. An
acquittal in a criminal case does not prevent the disciplinary authority
from taking action based on the teacher's conduct.
11.1 The objective of criminal proceedings is to punish offenders
and deter crime, while the objective of disciplinary proceedings is to
maintain discipline, ensure proper conduct within an organisation, and
protect its reputation. An acquittal due to the hostile victim and witness
in a criminal case does not negate the disciplinary authority to achieve
its disciplinary objectives.
12. The teacher, headmaster and others have fully supported the
case against the petitioner in the departmental proceedings. Section 164
CrPC statement of the victim is against the petitioner, which fully
supports the prosecution's case. This Court is not making any comment
on the trial Court judgment acquitting the petitioner, which is otherwise
much to be commented upon. However, the scope of the domestic
WP(C) NO. 10763 OF 2025
2025:KER:48446
enquiry and criminal trial is different. Even if a person is acquitted on a
criminal trial, the same would not necessarily lead to discharge in the
domestic enquiry. The petitioner, being the teacher of the victim, had a
fiduciary relationship with the victim. If the petitioner's conduct, which
has been proved in the domestic enquiry, is not of the expected
standard, and his behaviour is unbecoming of a teacher, he is liable to be
removed as per Rule V of Chapter XIII of KER which state, "any person
employed as a teacher in a school shall not be eligible to continue as a teacher if
he behaves towards his pupils, their parents, the Headmaster, the Manager or
any Educational Officer or towards anybody in any manner grossly unbecoming
a teacher".
Conclusion:
13. The question is whether the petitioner's misconduct, which
has been found proved in the domestic enquiry by the statement of the
teachers of the school, which is grossly unbecoming of a teacher of the
school, is to be considered in the domestic enquiry. A person accused of
WP(C) NO. 10763 OF 2025
2025:KER:48446
sexually abusing a 10-year-old child is grossly unbecoming of a teacher
at the school. The scar of the crime will never get removed, and it will
always haunt the victim.
13.1 Further, the petitioner has approached this Court at a pre-
mature stage, inasmuch as only a show cause notice for proposing the
punishment has been issued to him. At this stage, this Court would not
like to interdict the proceedings.
Result:
Therefore, this Court does not find any substance in this writ
petition, which is hereby dismissed. All Interlocutory Applications as
regards interim matters stand closed.
Sd/-
D K SINGH
JUDGE
jjj
WP(C) NO. 10763 OF 2025
2025:KER:48446
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10763/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.1/2024 DATED 20.03.2024 ISSUED BY THE 6TH
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.04.2024 ISSUED BY THE 6TH
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF CHARGE MEMO NO.02/2024 DATED 18.04.2024 ISSUED
BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS DATED 18.04.2024
ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 06.05.2024 SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO.AEOWDR/406/2024-B DATED 13.08.2024
ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.DEOWDR/1854/2024-A3 DATED 09.09.2024
ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8 TRUECOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.02.2025 PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT II, PERINTHALMANNA IN SC
NO.614/2024.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 01.03.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH , 5TH AND 6TH RESPONDENTS.
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 28.02.2025 ISSUED BY THE 6TH
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 23.01.2025 PREPARED BY
THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 08.03.2025.
Exhibit P3 Translation of Exhibit P3
Exhibit P10 Translation of Exhibit P10
Exhibit P11 Translation of Exhibit P11
