Manager, Sri Vivekananda Vocational Higher Secondary School vs State Of Kerala & Ors.

Muralee Krishna S., J.

W.A.No.1142 of 2026 is filed by the 5^th respondent in W.P.(C)No.5942 of 2026 and W.A.No.1197 of 2026 is filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.6532 of 2026, invoking the provisions under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the common judgment dated 31.03.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in those writ petitions. For convenience of reference, the parties and documents are referred in this judgment as in W.P.(C)No.5942 of 2026, unless otherwise stated.

The 5^th respondent-petitioner filed W.P.(C)No.5942 of 2026 with the following averments:

The appellant-petitioner filed W.P.(C)No.6532 of 2026, being aggrieved by Ext.P20 order dated 18.12.2025 of the Government, which was sought to be implemented in W.P.(C)No.5942 of 2026 by the petitioner therein, who is the 6^th respondent in W.P.(C)No.6532 of 2026. The appellant-petitioner in W.P.(C)No.6532 of 2026 contends that against Ext.P16 enquiry report, he preferred a revision petition dated 04.11.2024 before the Government invoking the provisions under Rule 92 of Chapter 14A of the Kerala Education Rules (‘KER’ for short), which is marked as Ext.P17 in W.P.(C)No.6532 of 2026. But the Government passed Ext.P20 order in Ext.P19 revision filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.5942 of 2026, keeping pending the revision filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.6532 of 2026. It is contended by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.6532 of 2026 that the issuance of Ext.P20 order, without considering the revision preferred by the petitioner, is absolutely arbitrary and unjust and that the enquiry report exonerating the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.5942 of 2026 was drawn without following the procedure and without considering the seriousness of the allegations raised against the petitioner-teacher. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.6532 of 2026 sought the following reliefs in that writ petition:

In W.P.(C)No.6532 of 2026, the 6^th respondent, who is the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.5942 of 2026 filed a counter affidavit dated 12.03.2026, producing therewith Ext.R6(a) document. Paragraphs 2 to 7 of that counter affidavit read thus:

After considering the rival contentions of the parties and appreciating the materials on record, the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dated 31.03.2026 dismissed W.P.(C)No.6532 of 2026 and disposed of W.P.(C)No.5942 of 2026 directing the 3^rd respondent Deputy Director of Education to implement Ext.P20 order issued by the Government and grant the petitioner all benefits as ordered by the Government in Ext.P20 order. Being aggrieved, the respective appellants filed these writ appeals, however, with a delay of 24 days.

By separate orders dated 12.06.2026, in the delay condonation applications filed in the respective writ appeals, we condoned the said delay and listed the writ appeals for admission.

On 22.06.2026, when the writ appeals came up for admission, this Court passed a detailed order, which reads thus:

On 13.07.2026, when the writ appeals came up for consideration, after considering the order dated 22.06.2026 and the submission made at the Bar, this Court directed the learned Senior Government Pleader to get specific instructions as to whether that disposal of the revision petition by the State, vide the GO dated 06.05.2026, was with notice to the appellant-manager. The complete files relating to Ext.P20 order dated 18.12.2025 and the Government Order dated 06.05.2026 were directed to be produced for the perusal of this Court, by the next posting date. Paragraphs 2 to 4 of that order read thus:

On 20.07.2026, Pursuant to the direction in the order dated 13.07.2026, the learned Senior Government Pleader made available for the perusal of this Court the printout of the e-files relating to Ext.P20 order dated 18.12.2025 and the Government Order dated 06.05.2026 and the Registry is directed to retain the same.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant in both the writ appeals, the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

The learned counsel for the appellant argued that in Ext.P20 order of the Government there is no reference regarding the revision filed by the appellant against Ext.P16 enquiry report. It is keeping pending the said revision petition filed by the appellant, the 1^st respondent passed Ext.P20 order and therefore, the said order is illegal, arbitrary and unfair. In fact, the 1^st respondent ought to have considered the revision petition dated 04.11.2024 filed by the appellant, before considering the revision filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.5942 of 2026. The learned counsel vehemently argued that the appellant did not accept the enquiry report, but issued consequential orders to comply the directions in Ext.P17 judgment and duly preferred a revision in terms of Rule 92 of Chapter 14A of the KER. According to the learned counsel, as per the conclusion arrived at by the Division Bench of this Court in Cherian v. Anna S. Varghese [1987 (1) KLT 301], the right of the Manager to pursue his remedies against Ext.P16 enquiry report is not deprived. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that in Ext.P17 judgment, this Court clarified that the direction to issue consequential orders by the Manager shall be without prejudice to the right of the Manager to invoke his remedies against Ext.P16 enquiry report. Ext.P17 judgment, which attained finality, is an inter-party judgment and therefore is binding on all the parties. The learned counsel submitted that in Ext.P20 order, the directions given by the 1^st respondent to the 3^rd respondent to give recommendations regarding regularisation of the non-attendance period of the petitioner, to the Government are against the statements mentioned in Ext.P20 order by the Director of Public Instruction/Director of General Education and the District Educational Officer. No reasons are mentioned in Ext.P20 order by the 1^st respondent to regularise the non-attendance period of the petitioner. It is also the contention of the appellant that during the period of non-attendance of the petitioner, another High School Assistant was drawing salary from the Government. But he was not made a party to W.P.(C)No.5942 of 2026.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 5^th respondent-writ petitioner argued that at the time of hearing the Manager did not raise any objection against deciding Ext.P19 revision, pointing out the pendency of the revision filed by him. The learned counsel further argued that the appellant passed an order of punishment, though it is contrary to the findings in Ext.P16, accepting the enquiry report and therefore bound to follow the findings in Ext.P16 enquiry report. Hence, the revision filed by the appellant is not maintainable before the Government. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel also relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Cherian [1987 (1) KLT 301]. According to the learned counsel, there is no illegality in the findings of the learned Single Judge.

The learned Senior Government Pleader argued that the 1^st respondent passed Ext.P20 order, without considering the revision filed by the appellant, only because this Court, as per the judgment dated 10.12.2024 in W.P.(C)No.43961 of 2024, has directed the 1^st respondent to dispose of that revision within three months. The learned Senior Government Pleader further submitted that now, as per the order dated 06.05.2026, the revision filed by the appellant was also disposed of by the 1^st respondent. However, on a query made by this Court, the learned Senior Government Pleader conceded that there is no mention in the order dated 06.05.2026 that the Manager was heard before passing that order.

The petitioner while working as HSA (Social Science) in Sri Vivekananda High School, Palemad P.O., Edakkara of Malappuram District, was issued with Ext.P2 memo of charges on the allegation that he did not handover the sum of Rs.26,945.80 which was entrusted to him while holding the charge of Headmaster during the period in which the regular headmistress of the school was under suspension by the Manager. The disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner were ultimately ended in Ext.P18 order dated 29.11.2024 issued by the appellant-Manager imposing a major penalty of compulsory retirement. Challenging Ext.P18, the petitioner filed Ext.P19 revision before the Government, in which the Government passed Ext.P20 order, pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in W.P.(C)No.43961 of 2024. According to the appellant-Manager, he was compelled to pass Ext.P18 order imposing penalty, due to the direction in Ext.P17 judgment of this Court in W.P.(C)No.31093 of 2024. However, since Ext.P16 enquiry report is in favour of the petitioner, the appellant-Manager also filed a revision before the Government, which is produced as Ext.P17 in W.P.(C)No.6532 of 2026. When both revision petitions are pending before the Government, without considering the revision filed by the appellant-Manager, by Ext.P20 order, the Government passed an order in favour of the petitioner. To implement that order, the petitioner filed W.P.(C)No.5942 of 2026 and challenging the same, the Manager filed W.P.(C)No.6532 of 2026.

When the appellant-Manager vehemently contended that the 1^st respondent ought not have passed Ext.P20 order without considering the revision filed by the Manager, the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.5942 of 2026-teacher contended that the revision filed by the Manager is not maintainable in view of Ext.P17 order imposing penalty passed by the Manager based on Ext.P16 enquiry report. At the same time, the appellant-Manager contended that the remedy to challenge Ext.P16 enquiry report is reserved in favour of the Manager in Ext.P17 judgment in W.P.(C)No.31093 of 2024.

From the submissions made at the Bar, and from the copy of the order dated 06.05.2026 issued by the Government, we notice that now the Government has disposed of the revision filed by the Manager also by that order. However, it appears that the said order dated 06.05.2026 was passed by the Government without hearing the Manager.

It is true that parties are at variance with regard to the maintainability of the revision petition filed by the appellant-Manager before the Government against Ext.P16 enquiry report, in view of the passing of Ext.18 order of punishment by him. However, while considering the fact that there was no mention about the pendency of the revision petition filed by the Manager before the Government in Ext.P20 order, and on the other hand it is observed that the Manager of the School has not filed any appeal or writ petition against the enquiry report dated 01.04.2024 of the District Educational Officer, Tirur, we are of the opinion that the 1^st respondent has passed Ext.P20 order without application of mind. In fact, since the revision petition filed by the appellant-Manager was pending at that time, the learned Single Judge ought to have directed the 1^st respondent to reconsider the revision petition filed by the petitioner along with a revision petition filed by the appellant-Manager. Even though the revision petition filed by the appellant is now disposed of by the Government order dated 06.05.2026, since there was no proper application of mind while passing Ext.P20 order, we are of the opinion that the matter has to be reconsidered by the Government giving notice to all the parties concerned and taking note of the contentions of the Manager also.

Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we are of the considered opinion that Ext.P20 order passed by the 1^st respondent is liable to be set aside, for rehearing and pass fresh orders.

In the result, these writ appeals are allowed by setting aside the impugned common judgment dated 31.03.2023 passed by the learned Single in W.P.(C)No.5942 of 2026 and W.P.(C)No.6532 of 2026 and the writ petitions are disposed of, leaving open the legal and factual contentions that are to be raised by the parties before the Government at the time of hearing the revision petitions, and also the right of the appellant-Manager to challenge the order dated 06.05.2026 passed by the Government in Ext.P17 revision petition dated 04.11.2024 produced in W.P.(C)No.6532 of 2026, and the 1^st respondent is directed to pass fresh orders in Ext.P19 revision petition dated 06.12.2024, in accordance with law, after hearing all the parties concerned.