When Misconduct 'Grossly Unbecoming Of A Teacher' Is Proven, He Can Be Removed Even If Acquitted In Criminal Case: Kerala High Court

The petitioner was a teacher in the respondent school who was accused of sexually assaulting his 9-year-old student. In the trial that ensued, the petitioner was acquitted as the victim, and her mother had turned hostile.

A disciplinary inquiry was conducted against him, and the Manager sent a show cause notice proposing a punishment of compulsory retirement in accordance with the Kerala Education Rules (KER). Thereupon, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking to set aside the inquiry report and consequential proceedings.

Justice D.K. Singh refused to intervene in the proceeding,s stating that the writ petition was preferred at a premature stage as only the show cause notice proposing punishment was issued to the petitioner.

It noted that the objectives of criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings are different, and the case against the petitioner has been proven by the statements of a teacher, headmaster and others, as well as the Section 164 CrPC statement of the victim.

It remarked: “…the objective of disciplinary proceedings is to maintain discipline, ensure proper conduct within an organisation, and protect its reputation. An acquittal due to the hostile victim and witness in a criminal case does not negate the disciplinary authority to achieve its disciplinary objectives.”

The Court observed that the question to be considered in the domestic inquiry is whether the petitioner's misconduct, which was proven in the domestic inquiry, is grossly unbecoming of a teacher of the school.

“The petitioner, being the teacher of the victim, had a fiduciary relationship with the victim. If the petitioner's conduct, which has been proved in the domestic enquiry, is of the expected standard, and his behaviour is unbecoming of a teacher. He is liable to be removed as per Rule V of Chapter XIII of KER which state, “any person employed as a teacher in a school shall not be eligible to continue as a teacher if he behaves towards his pupils, their parents, the Headmaster, the Manager or any Educational Officer or towards anybody in any manner grossly unbecoming a teacher”.

It thus refused to intervene and dismissed the writ petition.

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

Case Title: XXX. v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 428

Counsel for the petitioner: Kaleeswaram Raj, Thulasi K. Raj, Chinnu Maria Antony, Aparna Narayan Menon

Counsel for the respondents: Rajit, Ajaiy Baskar, V.Venugopal - GP