IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1931 RP.No. 1018 of 2009(D) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.16873/2009 Dated 11/08/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. THE SUB TREASURY OFFICER, KOTHAMANGALAM. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOTHAMANGALAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, TRIVANDRUM. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED.T.T. RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- ABRAHAM.K.P., HEADMASTER (RTD), MDHS, THOLELY, AYROORPADAM P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, RESIDING AT KANJIRATHINGAL HOUSE, AYROORPADAM P.O., THRIKKARIYOOR, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR .J -------------------------------- R.P.No.1018 of 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 6th November,2009 ORDER Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the respondents in the writ petition have approached this court by filing this review petition against the directions to issue the Non Liability Certificate to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The main ground raised in the review petition is that the Deputy Director of Education had already initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. The factum of pendency of disciplinary action initiated against the petitioner, in the writ petition, could not be brought to the notice of the court at the time of hearing. 2. When the matter came up for hearing on the last occasion the Government Pleader was directed to get instruction as to whether disciplinary action said to have been initiated is prior to the retirement or not. It is reported now that a notice was issued after retirement. R.P.No.1018 of 2009 2 3. In the light of the above the contention raised in the review petition cannot be accepted. The learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that prior to the retirement of the respondent there were no valid proceedings either by way of disciplinary action or by way of seeking recovery. Therefore I do not find any merit in the review petition and the same is dismissed. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE ssn