Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh dismissed a writ petition challenging disciplinary proceedings initiated against a teacher accused of sexual misconduct with a minor student. The Court refused to interfere with the disciplinary process despite the petitioner’s acquittal in the corresponding criminal case. The judgment confirmed that the acquittal, which was based on the victim and her mother turning hostile during trial, did not undermine the validity of the domestic enquiry. The Court upheld the principle that disciplinary proceedings are distinct from criminal proceedings and operate on a lower standard of proof. It also noted that the misconduct was grossly unbecoming of a teacher and that the continuation of the disciplinary process was warranted to maintain institutional integrity and safeguard student welfare. The Court found no merit in the plea to set aside the inquiry report or halt the punishment proposal, stating that the petitioner had approached the Court prematurely, at the stage of a show cause notice. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.

The petitioner, a 49-year-old Junior Language Teacher (Arabic), was employed at V.K.S.N.M.A.L.P. School, Vellampuram, Karad P.O., Vandoor, Malappuram since 2003. On 04.01.2023, allegations of sexual abuse were made against him by a minor student aged 9 years, 6 months, and 9 days. A criminal case was subsequently registered as Crime No. 234/2024 under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.

Also Read: S.129 CGST Act | Mere Payment Of Penalty To Release Goods Doesn’t Waive Right To Challenge Levy | Supreme Court

The victim alleged in her Section 164 CrPC statement that the petitioner had touched her inappropriately during Arabic classes on multiple occasions while instructing her to stand near him. The complaint was reported to the class teacher by the victim's mother and subsequently escalated to the headmaster, which led to the lodging of the FIR and the petitioner’s arrest on 11.03.2024. He was later granted bail.

Pursuant to the FIR, the petitioner was placed under suspension and a disciplinary inquiry was initiated by the school management. The Manager issued a Charge Memo under Rule 75 of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules (KER), citing four charges: registration of a POCSO case and arrest; serious indiscipline; reputational damage to the institution; and conduct unbecoming of a teacher.

The petitioner was issued a Statement of Allegations dated 18.04.2024 and submitted his written explanation on 06.05.2024. Despite his explanation, an inquiry was conducted, and the Enquiry Officer submitted the report on 23.01.2025, confirming the misconduct. The report concluded that the allegations were substantiated and recommended appropriate disciplinary action.

Following this, the Manager, in compliance with Rule 75(XI) read with Rule 65(V) of Chapter XIV-A KER, proposed the penalty of compulsory retirement. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner seeking his response to the proposed penalty. At this stage, the petitioner approached the High Court, seeking to set aside the inquiry report and to quash further proceedings.

The petitioner contended that he had already been acquitted in the criminal trial (SC No. 614/2024) by the Hon’ble Fast Track Special Court-II, Perinthalmanna, on 13.02.2025. He argued that since the same facts and circumstances formed the basis for both the criminal case and the disciplinary proceedings, his acquittal ought to preclude any further disciplinary action. He further asserted that continuation of proceedings would amount to double jeopardy.

On the contrary, the respondents, including the State, the School Manager, and the Headmaster, maintained that the acquittal was not on merits but due to the victim and her mother turning hostile. They stated that disciplinary proceedings were independent and could be sustained on the basis of the evidentiary standard of preponderance of probabilities.

The Court recorded at the outset: "Education is preparation for life... A good teacher in the ancient system of Indian Education interweaves his own life with the life of his people." Justice Singh invoked several reflections on the role and integrity expected of teachers, quoting John C. Maxwell: "Students don't care how much you know until they know how much you care" and Solomon Ortiz: "Education is the key to success in life, and teachers make a lasting impact on the lives of their students".

The Court proceeded to examine the disciplinary framework and standards applicable to domestic enquiries. It stated: "Disciplinary proceedings are based on the preponderance of probabilities, and the strict rule of evidence is not applicable while conducting the disciplinary proceedings, as in the criminal trial."

Referring to precedents such as Nand Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar, the Court quoted: "Suspicion cannot be allowed to take the place of proof even in domestic inquiries", but clarified that: "The order passed by such authority cannot be interfered with... merely on the ground that it was based on evidence which would be insufficient for conviction... at a criminal trial."

In Parameswaran Namboodiri v. State of Kerala, the Court relied on the observation: "It is now settled law that simply because of an acquittal in a criminal case the disciplinary proceedings pending against that officer cannot be dropped even if the facts... are the same."

Further, drawing from Commissioner of Police, New Delhi v. Mehar Singh, the Court reiterated that acquittals resulting from hostile witnesses do not constitute honourable acquittals: "Such acquittals are not acquittals on merit" and "An acquittal based on benefit of doubt would not stand on a par with a clean acquittal on merit after a full-fledged trial".

The Court added: "Disciplinary proceedings are distinct from criminal proceedings, operating under different standards of proof, rules of evidence, and objectives." It clarified that an acquittal in a criminal trial "does not necessarily mean that the accused is innocent or that the alleged misconduct did not occur."

The Court observed that the teacher, headmaster and others had "fully supported the case against the petitioner in the departmental proceedings". The statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 CrPC also corroborated the charges. Hence, the Court held that the domestic enquiry could not be faulted solely on account of the criminal acquittal.

Also Read: “Access to Justice Is Not a Privilege but a Constitutional Right”: Bombay High Court Orders MahaRERA to Restore Hybrid Hearings and Implement Procedural Reforms

Referring to Rule V of Chapter XIII of KER, the Court noted: "Any person employed as a teacher in a school shall not be eligible to continue as a teacher if he behaves... in any manner grossly unbecoming a teacher". Justice Singh concluded: "A person accused of sexually abusing a 10-year-old child is grossly unbecoming of a teacher at the school".

The Court concluded that the petitioner had approached the Court at a premature stage of the proceedings. It stated: "Only a show cause notice for proposing the punishment has been issued to him. At this stage, this Court would not like to interdict the proceedings."

Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition. It held: "This Court does not find any substance in this writ petition, which is hereby dismissed. All Interlocutory Applications as regards interim matters stand closed."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Shri. Kaleeswaram Raj, Kum. Thulasi K. Raj, Smt. Chinnu Maria Antony, Smt. Aparna Narayan Menon

For the Respondents: Shri. Rajit, Shri. Ajaiy Baskar, V. Venugopal – Government Pleader

Case Title: XXXX v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:48446

Case Number: WP(C) No. 10763 of 2025

Bench: Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh