Manager, Akm Higher Secondary School vs State Of Kerala And Ors

The Manager of “AKM Higher Secondary Schoolâ€, Malappuram, has approached this Court impugning Ext.P3 Inquiry Report settled by the

second respondent - District Educational Officer, Malappuram, on certain allegations levelled against the third respondent - High School Teacher, as

also Ext.P5 order of the Government approving the same, on various grounds but primarily that the enquiry is vitiated on account of the fact that no

witnesses were allowed to be examined and that their depositions have not been recorded by the second respondent.

The petitioner, through his learned counsel Sri.Augustine Joseph, vehemently asserts that, as is evident from Ext.P4, none of the witnesses that

were produced by him before the Enquiry Officer had even been examined; while when the matter went to the Government, it is recorded in Ext.P5

that the said enquiry report is based on the deposition of the witnesses. The learned counsel pointed out that even a reading of Ext.P3 would not show

that the DEO has relied upon any oral evidence or deposition of any of the witnesses and therefore, that both Exts.P3 and P5 are liable to be set aside

and prayed that this Court do so and direct the second respondent to conduct a fresh enquiry.

In response, Sri.R.K.Muralidharan - learned counsel appearing for the third respondent, submitted that the allegations made by the petitioner in this

writ petition are wholly untenable because he had not produced any witnesses before the second respondent at the time when the enquiry under Rule

75 Chapter XIV A of the KER was taken forward, nor did he even produce a list of witnesses, which is the procedure as is stipulated under the said

Rules. He submitted that this is evident from the fact that even in the averments contained in this writ petition, there is not even a whisper that

witnesses had been cited or produced by the petitioner or that the second respondent had refused to allow him to examine them or to cross examine

them. Sri.R.K.Muralidharan, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

The learned Senior Government Pleader - Sri.P.A.Manoj, appearing on behalf of the official respondents, submitted that Ext.P5 order is

irreproachable, since the Government has gone through the enquiry report, namely Ext.P3, in detail and have found that it has been prepared by the

second respondent after following due procedure. He, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

I have considered the afore submissions and have also gone through Exts.P3 and P5 very carefully.

There is little doubt from Ext.P3 that the second respondent has settled the same without specifically mentioning therein about any deposition having

been recorded from any witness. Further, the report is also silent as to whether the Manager had filed a list of witnesses or whether he had produced

witnesses before the Enquiry Authority at the time when the proceedings were continuing. This has some relevance because, in Ext.P2 - which is a

letter issued by the Manager on 21.09.2017 to the second respondent, he has cited two witnesses and has averred in ground C of this writ petition that

they were present before the said respondent when the proceedings were being continued by him.

That apart, in Ext.P5, the Government has recorded that enough opportunity had been given to the petitioner to examine and cross examine the

witnesses and that Ext.P3 has been settled on the basis of the “depositions†from such witnesses. However, as of now, this Court is not in a

position to verify whether there were any such depositions and obviously, therefore, the allegations of the petitioner will require further scrutiny by the

Government itself.

In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and set aside Ext.P3; with a consequential direction to the competent Secretary of the first

respondent to reconsider Ext.P4 revision filed by the petitioner, adverting to his contentions as recorded in this writ petition and after affording an

opportunity of being heard to him as well as the third respondent â€" either physically or through video conferencing â€" thus culminating in an

appropriate decision thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.