Court stays teacher suspension over quiz calling Savarkar ‘most punished freedom fighter’

“The continued suspension of the petitioner is not required for the proper conduct of the enquiry…“suspension of an employee pending disciplinary proceedings and departmental enquiry is not automatic but is discretionary,” the court said on August 19. The matter has been posted for hearing on September 18.

One of the five tie-breaker questions in the quiz, organised at the lower-primary level on August 6, was: “Who was the freedom fighter who received the maximum punishment from the Britishers?” The answer was given as V D Savarkar, which became controversial and led to an enquiry by the Education Department.

Teacher challenges suspension

The authorities suspended the teacher and directed the school manager to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him. A suspension order was issued, followed by a memo of charges. Following this, the teacher approached the high court challenging the proceedings, arguing that preparing a question paper for a quiz could not alone amount to an act of indiscipline warranting action.

Justice Viju Abraham said the officer was aware of the contents of the question paper but did not raise any objection to the questions prepared by the teacher.

He argued that the suspension was imposed because the question was not palatable to a section of the society. He said that Savarkar was a freedom fighter who had spent a considerable period in jail and argued that the action against him was unwarranted.

Relying on communications from the assistant education officer regarding the quiz, he said that after he prepared the question paper, it was sent to the assistant education officer, who then distributed it to headmasters of various schools. He argued that the paper was seen by the education officer before it was circulated and that no objection had been raised over the disputed question and no action had been taken against the officer.

Action not based on ideology: State

Defending the action against the teacher, the state government said it was not based on the teacher’s opinion or ideology.

In its counter-affidavit, the Education Department said the answer identifying Savarkar as the freedom fighter who underwent the maximum punishment or imprisonment under British rule was factually incorrect. The officials said that the teacher had failed to exercise due care while preparing the question paper, resulting in the inclusion of a controversial and objectionable question and answer that led to public complaints.

The government informed the court that disciplinary proceedings were initiated because of the teacher’s alleged negligence of duty and the suspension was validly ordered under Section 12A of the Kerala Education Act and relevant provisions of the Kerala Education Rules.

It also argued that the teacher had an effective alternative remedy against the disciplinary proceedings and that his writ petition was premature.

Role of assistant education officer

Talking note of the government’s own counter affidavit, in which it stated that the proceedings were initiated because of alleged negligence of duty and not because of any opinion or ideology, the high court said that the question paper prepared by the teacher had been sent to the assistant education officer, who distributed it to headmasters of various schools for the quiz.

The court said the officer was aware of the contents of the question paper but did not raise any objection to the questions prepared by the teacher. “The 5th respondent (assistant education officer) is also aware of the contents in the question paper for the quiz competition, but did not raise any objection regarding any of the questions prepared by the petitioner,” the court said.

Further taking note of the fact that no action had been taken against the officer, the court said that the government said the proceedings were based on a fact-finding enquiry report. It said that the report was not referred to in the suspension proceedings and had not been produced along with the counter affidavit.

Disciplinary enquiry to continue

The high court did not decide whether the disputed answer was historically correct or whether the teacher was guilty of negligence. However, it held that the enquiry initiated through the memo of charges should continue. The court noted that the controversy, based on the positions taken by the government and the school management, concerned the correctness of the question and answer.

“The controversy solely lies in the correctness of the content of the question and answer, which is to be decided based on the findings in the enquiry,” it said.

The court said that continued suspension was not necessary for conducting the enquiry, considering the nature of the allegations, and added that the suspension pending disciplinary proceedings is not automatic but discretionary and is intended to enable the smooth conduct of the proceedings.