Hameed, a lab assistant at MSM Higher Secondary School in Malappuram, was suspended in August 2007 and terminated in March 2008. His termination followed an inquiry by the Director of Higher Secondary Education, who initially recommended reinstatement with a warning.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court, in a case involving a Kerala teacher suspended for staging a ‘satyagraha’ outside his school, observed that enforcing discipline in schools must start with the teachers themselves.
The teacher, K Shahul Hameed, had challenged his suspension and termination, which were based on allegations of disrupting school activities and protesting against the management’s misconduct.
A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih agreed to hear Hameed’s plea for reinstatement, provided he submitted an undertaking to refrain from such acts in the future.
Criticizing his actions, the court remarked, “If you enforce discipline on students, you should yourself be disciplined, and you are sitting outside the school.”
Hameed, a lab assistant at MSM Higher Secondary School in Malappuram, was suspended in August 2007 and terminated in March 2008. His termination followed an inquiry by the Director of Higher Secondary Education, who initially recommended reinstatement with a warning. However, the school manager contested this, arguing that disciplinary authority lay with the manager under Kerala Education Rules. The Kerala High Court sided with the manager, leading to Hameed’s removal.
READ ALSO: Supreme Court To Hear Plea Next Week Challenging 70 Senior Advocate Designations
Advocate Abid Ali Beeran P, representing the teacher, argued that his client’s protest was directed against the management’s alleged misconduct. He accused the school manager of harboring a personal grudge, stating, “Others also protested, but I alone am being dismissed due to my enmity with the manager.” Highlighting the teacher’s age and career tenure, Beeran added, “At 42, where will I find another job after 15 years of service?”
Acknowledging the teacher’s financial plight, the bench remarked, “The most we can consider is whether the penalty imposed was excessive. However, even if we decide to modify the punishment, awarding back wages is not an option.”
Beeran assured the court that his client would provide an undertaking not to repeat such actions.
The court noted, “The petitioner’s counsel has stated that the petitioner is prepared to submit an undertaking refraining from any objectionable activities in the future.”
Hameed had staged a ‘satyagraha’ alongside another teacher outside the school on July 31, 2007. After admitting to the allegations, the school manager referred the matter to the Director of Higher Secondary Education for an inquiry. The Director confirmed the charges but recommended reinstatement with a warning not to repeat such conduct.
Unhappy with this decision, the school manager approached the Kerala High Court, asserting that, under the Kerala Education Rules, the power to impose penalties rested with the manager and not the Director. The High Court sided with the manager, leading to Hameed’s termination effective March 28, 2008. His suspension period from August 3, 2007, to March 27, 2008, was categorized as ‘leave without allowance.’ The Director subsequently approved this decision in September 2010.
Hameed’s initial challenge to his dismissal was rejected by a single-judge bench of the Kerala High Court in November 2015.
The court observed, “Discipline is essential in schools, and the petitioner, as a lab assistant, was obligated to perform his duties per the directives issued. Instead, he disrupted the Parent Teachers Association meeting and engaged in satyagraha.”
Hameed contended that the disciplinary action violated Rule 75 of Chapter XIV of the Kerala Education Rules, claiming he was denied access to the inquiry report and was unable to cross-examine witnesses. Rule 75 mandates that the accused be granted an opportunity to present their defense and review pertinent documents.
However, the High Court concluded, “In a state-managed school, discipline is paramount. If any staff member acts in complete disregard for discipline, it undermines the institution as a whole.”
The court determined,
“The punishment of dismissal from service is not disproportionate to the established charges.” This decision was later upheld by a two-judge bench of the Kerala High Court in September 2019 and is now under review by the Supreme Court.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
