Manager, Cmc Girls High School vs State Of Kerala And Ors

The Manager of CMC Girls High School, Elathur, Kozhikode has approached this Court impugning Exhibit P15 order of the Government, under which, action as per Rule Chapter III of the Kerala Education Rules (KER) has been ordered against him alleging that on account of his intransigent conduct, the Government has suffered a loss of Rs.3,51,026/-.

The petitioner says that the genesis of the allegation against him that led to Exhibit P15 order is that he had suspended the fourth respondent- Headmistress of the School on 28.11.2011 on certain charges, but that this suspension was not granted concurrence beyond fifteen days by the Deputy Director of Education through order dated 13.12.2011. He says that against this order he approached the Government by filing a statutory Revision under Rule 92 Chapter XIVA of the KER and that it issued an interim order of stay against operation of the order of the Deputy Director of Education on 25.01.2012, which remained in force until 15.06.2012, when the said Revision was dismissed.

The petitioner says that, thereafter, the fourth respondent approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.5552/2012 and that this Court directed that the salary with effect from 28.11.2011, along with all other benefits, be paid to her. She submits that it is based on this order of this Hon'ble Court that he has been proceeded against under Exhibit P15 and that this is egregiously improper because he had already complied with the directions of the Government in the order rejecting his Revision by reinstating the fourth respondent on 27.06.2012. He submits that, therefore, until 15.06.2012, which is the date of the order of the Government in the statutory Revision, no deliberate violation can be alleged against him, as has been now found by the Government in Exhibit P15 order because he was prosecuting his legally available remedies. The petitioner, therefore, prays that Exhibit P15 be set aside.

In response, the learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that Exhibit P15 has been issued because it was solely due to the adamant stand taken by the Manager that the Headmistress of the School remained under suspension from 28.11.2011 to 27.06.2012, when she was reinstated. He, therefore, prayed that Exhibit P15 be allowed to operate and that the Manager be proceeded against as per law.

When I consider the afore rival contentions, it is evident that the provisions of Rule 7 Chapter III of the KER would apply only if there had been deliberate and repeated violations of the orders of the Government or of the Educational Authorities by the Manager.

In the case at hand, the allegation against the petitioner is that he had suspended the fourth respondent - Headmistress of the school on 28.11.2011 but that the Deputy Director of Education had, by order dated 13.12.2011, refused to grant concurrence to it and had directed to reinstate her in service. However, what is relevant in this case is that when the petitioner filed a statutory Revision — which remedy is certainly entitled to him in law — the Government itself issued an order on 28.01.2012 staying the afore order of the Deputy Director of Education and this continued until 15.06.2012, when it dismissed the Revision Petition. Pertinently, the petitioner complied with this order, which he must have obtained a few days later, by allowing the fourth respondent to be reinstated in service on 27.06.2012.

Of course, the fourth respondent, thereafter, approached this Court and obtained a judgment to the effect that she should be treated to have been in service with effect from 28.11.2011 and that she is entitled to all other emoluments. This, certainly, is only a consequence of her reinstatement, resultant to the orders of the Deputy Director of Education and that of the Government in the Revision Petition and ineluctably, therefore, the petitioner cannot be imputed of having disobeyed the orders of the Educational Authorities or that of the Government.

That apart, even though Exhibit P15 says that Government has suffered loss on account of payment of salary to the fourth respondent during the period when she had been kept under suspension, the fact remains that it is the Government itself which had enabled her suspension to be in effect from 25.01.2012 till 15.06.2012, during when the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner was pending.

Obviously, therefore, the petitioner could not have been mulcted with any liability for this period and, as I have already said above, in any event, he cannot be found liable for action under Rule 7 Chapter III of the KER, except if it had been shown that he had violated the orders of the Government or that of the Educational Authorities deliberately.

As far as this case is concerned, there can be no such allegation since, as soon as the Government rejected the Revision filed by the petitioner, he had reinstated the fourth respondent with effect from 27.06.2012. Luculently, therefore, the judgment of this Court in the writ petition filed by the fourth respondent is only consequential to the afore and cannot be found to be, in any manner, on account of the culpability on the part of the petitioner.

In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition and set aside Exhibit P15; with a resultant direction that no action based on the allegations in the said order be taken forward against the petitioner in future.

Needless to say, since I have already set aside Exhibit P15, the consequential Exhibit P16 order will also stand set aside.