Aided School Manager Cannot Discard Statutory Enquiry Report Exonerating Teacher To Impose Major Penalty: Kerala High Court

Justice Viju Abraham delivered the judgment while considering a writ petition filed by the manager of an aided school challenging a government order granting service and salary benefits to a retired teacher who had earlier been compulsorily retired from service.

The dispute arose from disciplinary proceedings initiated against a retired High School Assistant who had temporarily functioned as headmaster during the suspension of the regular headmistress. The allegations related to an alleged discrepancy in the noon meal programme cash balance amounting to Rs.26,945.80.

Following disciplinary proceedings, the manager imposed compulsory retirement in 2011. After multiple rounds of litigation and Government reconsideration, a fresh enquiry was ordered. The District Educational Officer, acting as the enquiry authority, later concluded that the allegations against the teacher could not be proved beyond doubt.

Despite this finding, the manager again imposed compulsory retirement. The Government subsequently interfered with the punishment order and directed that the teacher be granted all consequential benefits, including salary for the period between July 4, 2011 and March 31, 2016, and continuity of service benefits. This government order was challenged before the

The Court examined whether an aided school manager could reject an enquiry report that found charges against a teacher not proved beyond doubt and still proceed to impose the punishment of compulsory retirement.

The Court examined Section 12 of the Kerala Education Act, 1958 and Rule 75 of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules (KER), which govern disciplinary proceedings against aided school teachers.

The court noted that under Section 12(2) of KER, major penalties can be imposed only after a formal enquiry conducted by an educational authority designated under the Rules, and only with prior sanction from the competent educational authority.

It further noted that Rule 75 mandates that on conclusion of the inquiry, an inquiry report must be submitted by the inquiry authority and a major punishment could be imposed on the delinquent employee only with the sanction of the competent authority.

“The said rule further mandates that at the conclusion of the inquiry, the inquiring authority shall prepare a report of the inquiry, recording its findings on each of the charges and if the manager is of the opinion that any of the major penalty should be imposed, he shall furnish the teacher a copy of the report of the inquiring authority, give him notice regarding the action proposed and thereafter the manager can pass final orders imposing the penalty with the previous sanction of the competent authority. So, going by the said provision, a major punishment could be imposed on the delinquent employee only with the sanction of the competent authority.” the Court noted.

The Court observed that in ordinary service jurisprudence, disciplinary authorities may disagree with enquiry findings after following due procedure, but the statutory framework governing aided schools in Kerala is different.

The Court relied on Cherian v. Anna S. Varghese [1987 KHC 103], where it was held that the manager is bound by the findings of the statutory enquiry officer regarding the innocence of the delinquent staff. The Division Bench in Cherian had held that the Kerala Education Act and Rules were specifically designed to limit arbitrary disciplinary powers of aided school managers by entrusting enquiries to neutral educational authorities.

“The Division Bench of this Court in Cherian's case cited supra has categorically held that the manager has no jurisdiction to impose any punishment after the enquiry officer has entered a finding that the charges levelled against the delinquent are not proved and that the general principle applicable to ordinary disciplinary enquiry is not applicable to an enquiry conducted as per the provisions of the Kerala Education Act and Rules.” the Court noted.

The Court thus held that once a statutory enquiry officer concluded that the charges were not proved, the manager lacked jurisdiction to impose compulsory retirement by discarding the enquiry report.

“In the light of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Cherian's case cited supra and taking into consideration the above and facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that Ext.P18 punishment imposed by the manager discarding Ext.P16 enquiry report, wherein the charges against petitioner were found to be not proved, was rightly interfered as per Ext.P20 order by the Government. Therefore, I am of the view that Ext.P20 order produced in W.P.(C) No.5942 of 2026, which is impugned in W.P.(C) No.6532 of 2026, is not liable to be interfered with.” Court held.

The court therefore upheld the Government order which set aside the punishment and directed implementation of the order granting the teacher all consequential service benefits.

Case Title: A.K. Baby v State of Kerala and Ors. and connected case

Case No: WP(C) 5942/ 2026 and connected case

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 253

Counsel for Petitioner: Dr. George Abraham, Mary Catherine Priyanka P.S., Alex Tom Joseph

Counsel for Respondents: Jestin Mathew, Joshy Raj R.R., Sachin Zachariah, Abhay R. Unnithan