Kerala High Court, on March 10, held that disciplinary proceedings are essentially a matter between the employer and the employee and a stranger cannot be said to have any interest in those proceedings.
The court held this while dismissing a plea challenging the decision of the government in dropping the disciplinary proceedings against respondents 4 (retired administrative assistant) and respondent 5 (retired senior superintendent).
The facts of the matter is that the petitioner is a retired district educational officer. The petitioner’s wife E.P. Pushpalatha was working as headmistress in Kunjithanni government High School in Idukki District. She took charge as Head Mistress in the school on July 23, 2014.
On March 6, 2015, the 4th and 5th respondents, who are the officials from the office of the deputy director of education, Idukki went to the Kunjithanni government high school under the guise of inspection and found that one clerk, namely, Anakha was continuously on leave. Officials demanded a statement in writing from the petitioner’s wife regarding the absence of the clerk and the salary collected by her. Petitioner’s wife was not willing to give such a statement forthwith in writing because she was busy with the SSLC examination to be held in a couple of days. Petitioner’s wife was threatened by the officials stating that she would face severe consequences if such a statement is not given.
After the incident, the petitioner’s wife was mentally stressed and on the next day, when she went to school, she was nervous due to the threat caused by the officials. She went home a little early and by about 7 ‘O’clock in the evening, she fell unconscious and was taken to Kolenchery Medical College Hospital and she was admitted therein due to a sudden stroke in the brain. At the hospital, she had undergone a major operation and other treatment. However, she died in the hospital on March 11, 2015.
The district educational officer, Thodupuzha, on March 11, 2015, conducted an enquiry in connection with the death of the petitioner’s wife and submitted the report along with statements of four persons stated to be present at the time of the visit of the respondents 4 and 5 to the school. Later, the Director of Public Instructions vides suspended the 5th respondent, who was the senior superintendent in the office of the deputy director of education, Idukki and recommended the government to suspend the 4th respondent, the administrative assistant.
As directed by the Minister for Education and the Hon’ble Chief Minister, the Principal Secretary to Government, general education department conducted a hearing on the petitions filed by respondents 4 and 5 and submitted a note before the minister for education and the Chief Minister. In the Note, the principal secretary recommended disciplinary action against the 4th respondent, the administrative assistant and issue a warning to the 5th respondent, the Senior Superintendent.
Aggrieved by the action of the government, the petitioner then approached High Court alleging that the Chief Minister recommendation dropping all further action against the officials, without any valid or justifiable reason and without hearing the aggrieved parties including the close relatives of late Pushpalatha.
A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the government supporting the decision to drop the disciplinary proceedings against respondents 4 and 5 and it is stated that the officers who conducted the enquiry did not take evidence from those who were actually present in the school and no opportunity was given to the accused officers to cross-examine the witnesses and that in the case registered by the police, it was categorically stated that there was no connection with the sad demise of the headmistress and the enquiry conducted in the school by the respondents 4 and 5.
It is further stated that there was no room for suspicion regarding the involvement of the respondents 4 and 5 in the incident and overall the respondents were on the verge of superannuation and deserved some humanitarian consideration and the government found that there was no justification to proceed against them and decided to drop further action in the matter.
A single bench of justice Murali Purushothaman, while considering the Petition observed that 5th respondent was placed under suspension by the director of public instructions and was served with a memo of charges and statement of allegations dated March 30, 2015, and the disciplinary proceedings against the 5th respondent was dropped by the order of the director of public instructions and the period of suspension was treated as duty and regularised. The disciplinary proceedings initiated against the 5th respondent has come to a logical conclusion.
As far as the 4th respondent is concerned, the 4th respondent was neither placed under suspension nor issued with any memo of charges or statement of allegations in respect of the incident leading to the death of the petitioner’s wife. No disciplinary action was initiated against the 4th respondent while the 4th respondent was in service and he was allowed to retire from service on May 31, 2015. On termination of employment, the employer loses disciplinary control over the employee. However, in relation to employment under the state, the state retains some authority to deal with retired employees. As per the provisions of rule 3 of part III of the Kerala service rules, the government reserves the right to withhold the pension of a retired employee under certain contingencies, the court remarked.
The court cited the judgement of the Supreme Court in Ranjit Prasad v. Union of India [2000 (9) SCC 313] in which the court considered the scope of locus standi in entertaining a challenge to disciplinary proceedings and held that a person, who is not connected with those proceedings cannot challenge any aspect of such departmental proceedings or action by filing a writ petition. A departmental proceeding is essentially a matter between the employer and the employee and a stranger cannot be said to have any interest in those proceedings.
“The petitioner in this writ petition is not challenging any action initiated against the petitioner’s wife while she was in service or any action of the respondents 1 to 3 that would curtail any of the service or terminal benefits of the petitioner’s wife. Therefore, the petitioner cannot have any locus standi to challenge the decision of the government is dropping the disciplinary proceedings against respondents 4 and 5”, the court orders while dismissing the Petition.