M. Lalitha vs P.A. Cheriya Hassan Haji and Others

K. Vinod Chandran, J.—1. The petitioner, who was appointed as a teacher in 1976, was posted as Headmistress-in-charge in the year 1981. The petitioner admits to have relinquished her claim, to continue as Headmistress-in-charge by Ext. P1. The petitioner in the above writ petition alleges that the same was under the coercion of the Manager. It is also admitted that one another teacher in the very same school was appointed as the Headmaster. These proceedings were taken far earlier, in the year 1985. There can be no challenge raised against such proceedings nor can the allegation of coercion be considered in this writ petition of the year 2001.

The further contention is with respect to the period, in which the petitioner was kept under suspension; being a period of 10 years. The petitioner was suspended on allegations of misconduct by Ext. P3. The suspension was on account of a direction issued by the Assistant Educational Officer (A.E.O),Kondotty, on the basis of a complaint of the Secretary, Parent Teacher Association (P.T.A).

By Ext. P4, the A.E.O sanctioned the continuance of the petitioner on suspension as per Rule 67 (8) of Chapter XIVA of Kerala Education Rules (K.E.R), 1959. A memo of charges was issued as is indicated at Ext. P5. The allegations included charges of bogus admissions, drawing of lump sum grant in fictitious names, gross indiscipline in issuance of Transfer Certificates, manipulation and destruction of records etc. A crime was also registered against the petitioner for carrying on bogus admissions and for having misappropriated funds. The charge sheet is produced at Ext. P6.

Despite the various serious allegations, later, the Government by Ext. P8, directed reinstatement of the petitioner. The Manager filed a writ petition against Ext. P8 order, the copy of which is produced at Ext. P9. This Court in O.P. No. 5428 of 1990 by Ext. P10 judgment dated 08.08.1995 set aside Ext. P8 order, directing reinstatement of the petitioner and thus allowed the Original Petition. The petitioner was directed to be kept under suspension and disciplinary proceedings were directed to be expedited by Ext. P10 judgment.

An appeal was filed by the petitioner, which was disposed of by Ext. P11 judgment, ie. on 07.11.1995. The Government was directed to pass fresh orders on the application filed by the petitioner for reinstatement. Hence, modification was made to the learned Single Judge''s judgment only to the effect of interfering with the direction to continue the petitioner in suspension. Expedition in completion of disciplinary proceedings was directed by the Division Bench also in Ext. P11 judgment.

Again, a fresh proceeding was issued at Ext. P12 dated 14.10.1995 against the petitioner, on the very same allegations of misconduct. This was since the earlier proceeding had not continued after the issuance of charge sheet; since the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau had informed the Manager about initiation of a vigilance case against the teacher/petitioner and had directed the disciplinary proceedings to be kept in abeyance. After conduct of enquiry as against the charges levelled by Ext. P12, the Manager issued Ext. P18 show-cause notice dated 01.12.1995, seeking explanation from the petitioner why a punishment of removal from service shall not be ordered against the petitioner. The petitioner filed Ext. P19 explanation dated 18.12.1995.

In the meanwhile, the Government passed Ext. P20 G.O.(Rt) No. 2397/96/GE dated 23.07.1996, by which the petitioner was directed to be reinstated, in compliance with the judgment in WA No. 1386 of 1995. The petitioner is said to have been reinstated, on the basis of the Ext. P20 order in the year 1996 as Assistant Teacher. O.P. No. 12758 of 1996 filed by the Manager against Ext. P20 order was dismissed by Ext. P21 judgment dated 13.09.1996. The Manager reinstated the petitioner by Ext. P23 dated 04.12.1996.

On the disciplinary proceedings issued and the proposal of punishment of removal from service (Ext. P18), the Educational Authority, on the proposal being intimated to him, passed Ext. P24 order dated 28.12.1996. The allegations levelled against the petitioner were found to have been proved and found to be quite grave in nature. But considering the fact that the petitioner was a woman and that she was due to to retire in 1998, the Educational Authority directed that a minor punishment alone be imposed. By Ext. P25 dated 01.01.1998, the Manager issued a minor punishment of censure and the period of suspension was treated as eligible leave as ordered by the Government.

The petitioner was again before the Government, claiming that the period spent on suspension between 1986 and 1996 ought to be treated as duty. The Government by Ext. P32 G.O. (Rt) No. 942/2000/GE dated 08.03.2000, rejected the claim of the petitioner to treat the period as duty, but directed that the period would be treated as ''leave without allowances'' and also treated it as qualifying service for pension. The petitioner in the above writ petition challenges Exts.P23,24,25, 30 & 32.

Ext. P23 is the order of the Manager, reinstating the petitioner in service. The petitioner''s claim is that the petitioner has to be posted as Headmistress and not as an Assistant Teacher. However, as found earlier, the claim of the petitioner that her relinquishment was one obtained on coercion, is grossly time barred. One another Teacher was also appointed as Headmaster in the year 1986, which was not challenged by the petitioner. The petitioner while suspended from service, was continuing as an Assistant Teacher. Hence, there can be no claim made for being appointed as a Headmistress.

Ext. P24 is the order of the Assistant Educational Officer (AEO), refusing to approve the punishment proposed for dismissal from service and the direction issued for imposing a minor penalty. The challenge against Ext. P24 purportedly is against the proceedings initiated against her. It is trite that this Court would not sit in appeal against the order passed in disciplinary proceedings. A mere reading of Ext. P24 order would indicate that there were serious charges alleged against the petitioner and they were found to be proved. It is a fact that no enquiry was conducted, but herein only a minor punishment was imposed. The petitioner was imposed with only a censure as per the directions of the AEO in Ext. P24. In such circumstance, Ext. P24 order of the AEO and the consequent punishment imposed of censure by Ext. P25 are to be upheld.

The further challenge is against Exts.P30 & 34. Ext. P30 was an order passed by the AEO, which declined the treatment of the period of suspension as duty. The AEO refused to interfere with the order, passed by the Government being GO(Rt) No. 2397/95/GE dated 23.07.1996; rightly so. There can be no defect found in the action of the AEO, since he could not have sat in appeal over an order passed by the Government.

In any event, a representation filed before the Government ended in Ext. P32. The petitioner was found to have been charged with serious misconducts. Against which, even a criminal case was registered, which was later withdrawn by the Government. The Manager had challenged the said withdrawal, without success. The proceedings though concluded in the finding of guilt, only considering the impending retirement of the petitioner as also the fact that the petitioner was a woman, a minor punishment was directed to be imposed. The Government hence refused to deviate from its earlier order; but directed the suspension period to be treated as qualifying service for pension.

In the totality of the circumstances, this Court does not find any infirmity in the finding rendered by the Government in Ext. P32. It is to be noticed that the Government has directed the suspension period to be treated as qualifying service for pension. The suspension also was approved by the Educational Authority and at one stage when reinstatement was ordered, this Court had initially set it aside and directed continuance of the petitioner. However, in Writ Appeal the continuance under suspension was interfered with and a direction was issued to consider the matter afresh. The matter was considered afresh and reinstatement was ordered in 1996 and the petitioner taken back in service. There can be no defect found in treating the period of suspension as ''leave without allowances''. The writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and the same is dismissed.

The learned counsel, who appeared for the first respondent earlier, was present and he submitted that the first respondent was no more. The petitioner had also filed an impleading petition in the year 2013, seeking to implead the daughter of the Manager, in which no notice had been issued till date. This Court had heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader and has decided the matter against the petitioner in the above writ petition. In such circumstance, considering the fact that the writ petition was pending all these years, there is no requirement for issuing any notice in the impleading petition.

The writ petition would stand dismissed, leaving the parties to suffer their respective costs.