Decided on November 10,2017

Khayis A S Appellant
MANAGER Respondents


P.V. Asha, J. - (1.) Both these writ petitions relate to the suspension of a teacher by the Manager. The teacher filed W.P(c).No.21182 of 2017 complaining that the Manager is not implementing the order passed by the AEO directing his reinstatement. The Manager has filed W.P(C).No.26558 of 2017, challenging the order passed by the AEO. Therefore, both these writ petitions were heard together. The parties and documents are referred to as described in W.P(c).No.26558 of 2017, unless specified otherwise. 2. The 5 th respondent was appointed as a UPSA, as per order dt.28.7.2011 produced as Ext.P1 in W.P(c).21182/2017. One UPSA-Sri. Pookunju, availed leave without allowance for the period from 11.4.2009 to 31.12.2018. The teacher who was initially appointed in that vacancy resigned. The appointment of the 5 th respondent was made thereafter, for the 26558 of 2017-T 2 period from 28.07.2011 and his appointment was approved w.e.f 28.7.2011, as per endorsement in the order of appointment itself. While so, there arose.
(2.) Regular vacancies in the school consequent to retirement of Headmaster and a UPSA, on 31.03.2014. The 5 th respondent thereupon requested for appointment against those vacancies. As the Manager was not taking action, he approached the Assistant Educational Officer with complaints. The AEO did not approve the appointments made against the regular vacancies.
(3.) According to the Manager, unnecessary filing of petitions by the 5 th respondent raising untenable claims for appointment against the regular vacancies, resulted in rejection of approval to the appointments made by the Manager. The Manager complains that the 5 th respondent started spreading of rumours against the school, on account of which there was reduction in student strength from 100 to 68 and it even affected the normal functioning of the school. It was alleged that the 5 th respondent openly declared that he will not permit the School to function normally, in case he was not appointed in one of the retirement vacancies. It is also alleged that in a staff meeting held on 22.5.2017, the 5 th respondent abused the Manager; since his continuance in the school became intolerable, the Manager placed him under suspension as per Ext.P1 order produced in W.P (c).No.26558 of 2017 on 3.6.2017. Immediately thereafter a memo of charges Ext.P2 and statement of allegations Ext.P3 were also issued on 06.06.2017. As per Ext.P4 letter dt.6.6.2017, the Manager addressed the AEO, requesting for permission to retain the petitioner under suspension beyond 15 days. The Manager also requested the AEO to conduct a preliminary enquiry. Along with Ext.P4 letter, the Manager forwarded the copy of the memo of charges and statement of allegations as also the copy of the complaints dated 14.07.2014 and 16.9.2014 submitted by the 5 th respondent against the school as well as the Manager. It was alleged that the action of the 5 th respondent claiming appointment contrary to the provisions contained in Rule 51A and submitting complaints on the same amounted to misconduct under Rule 5 of Chapter XIII, Rule 23 of Chapter XIVB and Rule 46 of Chapter XIV C of the KER. On 16.6.2017, the AEO as per Ext.P5 letter forwarded the report of the preliminary enquiry and directed the Manager to initiate proceedings under Rule 68A of Chapter XIVA KER. As per Ext.P6 letter dt.24.6.2017, the AEO directed the Manager to reinstate the 5 th respondent and to report the matter immediately. In this letter it was stated that as per the preliminary enquiry report, the Manager was directed to reinstate the 5 th respondent, on 5.6.2017 itself, on being satisfied of the baseless allegations levelled against the 5th respondent, in the memo of charges.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.