SC raps Kerala teacher who was dismissed for staging protest against school

The SC bench criticised the teacher and agreed to entertain his appeal on the sole condition that he files an undertaking never to repeat such acts in future.

Enforcing discipline in schools should begin with teachers first, the Supreme Court observed in a recent case filed by a Kerala teacher who challenged an order suspending him for staging a ‘satyagraha’ outside the school in protest against the management’s misdeeds.

Representational image.

Agreeing to consider the teacher’s plea for reinstatement, a bench of justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih criticised the teacher, K Shahul Hameed, for his conduct and agreed to entertain his appeal on the sole condition that he files an undertaking never to repeat such acts in future.

“If you enforce discipline on students, you should yourself be disciplined and you are sitting outside the school,” the court said.

Hameed worked as a lab assistant at the MSM Higher Secondary School in Malappuram district and had approached the top court against his suspension in August 2007, followed by his termination in March 2008, on charges that he indulged in a ‘satyagraha’ in front of the school and disrupted the meeting of the Parent Teachers Association (PTA).

When the matter came up for hearing on December 17, the court adjourned the case to March 5, directing the Kerala government and the school management to file their responses. The court issued notice on the petition on November 28 noting that the teacher should not have protested in this manner against the school management.

Appearing for the teacher, advocate Abid Ali Beeran P said his client was protesting against the misdeeds of the management. Accusing the school manager of nursing a personal grudge against him, Beeran said, “There were others who protested. I alone am being removed from service due to my enmity with the (school) manager.” Citing his age, Hameed’s lawyer said, “Where do I get a job, now that I am being removed at the age of 42? I have been in service for 15 years.”

The court told the teacher, “You must get out of the institution and then protest against corruption. You are sitting in satyagraha against your own employer. Remember, you are a schoolteacher.”

Noting the predicament of the petitioner who was out of job and having no means of livelihood, the bench directed, “We find that the maximum which can be considered is whether the penalty is disproportionate. Even if we are persuaded to consider modification of the penalty, grant of back wages will not arise.”

As Beeran agreed to give an undertaking on behalf of his client, the court order said, “The counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner is willing to give an undertaking that he will not hereinafter indulge in objectionable activities.”

Hameed was penalised for staging a ‘satyagraha’ along with another teacher in front of the state-run school on July 31, 2007. As he admitted to the charges against him, the manager of the school referred his case to the Director of Higher Secondary Education to conduct an enquiry. The Director held that the charges stood proved but let him off with a warning not to repeat such misconduct. It was coupled with a direction to the school management to reinstate Hameed.

Not satisfied by the punishment, the school manager approached the Kerala high court claiming that the power to impose sentence is that of the manager and not the Director as per the Kerala Education Rules.

The high court ruled in his favour and after giving him a hearing, the manager removed him from service with effect from March 28, 2008. The period under suspension from August 3, 2007, till March 27, 2008, was treated as ‘leave without allowance’. The Director approved this punishment in September 2010.

His first challenge against the order dismissing him from service was rejected by a single judge bench of the Kerala high court in November 2015.

“In school, discipline is very important and being a lab assistant, the petitioner was bound to carry out his functions, in accordance with the directions issued in that regard and instead of carrying on his routine duties, he had indulged in ‘satyagraha’ in front of the School and had also disrupted the meeting of the PTA,” the HC had observed.

Hameed claimed the order against him was not in accordance with Rule 75 of Chapter XIV of Kerala Education Rules. He said the enquiry report was not shared with him and the witnesses were not examined in his presence. Rule 75 provides that the person should be given an opportunity to put up his defence and verify all necessary records.

The HC weighed the arguments of the teacher and the school and held, “Being a school managed by the respondent (state), discipline is of primary importance and if, one of the staff, being part of the school, works in a manner of total indiscipline, it will affect the institution as a whole.”

Under such circumstances, the HC single judge took the view, “I do not think that the imposition of punishment of removal from service was disproportionate to the proved charges.”

This judgment was later upheld by a two-judge bench of the Kerala high court in September 2019 that became the subject matter of challenge before the top court.