IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 13TH MAGHA 1932 WA.No. 97 of 2011() ------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.25777/2007 .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT ----------------------- MANAGER, AUP SCHOOL,PANANGATTIRI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR SMT.M.SINDHU THANKAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SHYLA V USHUS,PAZHAYANGADI,KOLLENGODE P.O-678506 PALAKKAD DISTRICT,(HEADMISTRESS(UNDER SUSPENSION) AUP SCHOOL,PANANGATTIRI,PALAKKAD DISTRICT) 2. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001 3. ASST.EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOLLENGODE P.O.,-678506 PALAKKAD DISTRICT R2 AND R3 BY G.P. SMT. T.B. RAMANI THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/02/2011, ALONG WITH CM APPLN.64 OF 2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. -------------------------------------------- W.A. No. 97 of 2011 & C.M.Appln. No. 64 of 2011 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. This Writ Appeal is filed with inordinate delay of 286 days . In support of the Delay Condonation Petition what is stated is that grievance for the appellant arose subsequent to the proceedings issued by the Government after receipt of the impugned judgment. Appellant has also stated that appellant filed another Writ Petition, WPC 37122 of 2010 against the fresh proceedings issued by the Government. Therefore the delay has occurred in filing the Writ Appeal. In these circumstances, we have to consider the merits of the Writ Appeal while considering the Delay Condonation Petition as well. 2. Writ Appeal is filed by the Manager of a School challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge interfering with the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the first respondent, who was the Headmistress of the school. We have considered the grounds raised 2 in the Writ Appeal and have gone through the detailed judgment of the learned single Judge. Sri. M. Balagovindan, advocate appeared and argued the case of the first respondent. 3. After considering the cotentions on both sides and after going through judgment of the learned single Judge we notice that the first respondent was booked for a minor case of alleged misappropriation of one bagof rice and little quantity of green gram. The learned single Judge found that she had not taken away any of the materials, but the materials were found damaged. A vigilance enquiry was conducted and there was a direction in the report to recover the amount from the first respondent. The specific allegation of the first respondent is that Manager took disciplinary proceedings against her by suspending her on a trivial matter only to help his close relative to become the Headmaster. Appellant has no case that the successor who took over as Headmaster from the first respondent is not his close relative. Further Enquiry Officer, namely, third respondent, who conducted the enquiry against the first respondent is also a close relative of the appellant, and the next Headmaster. So much so, the learned single Judge scrutinised 3 the disciplinary proceedings against the first respondent very closely and found that allegations proved are trivial not warranting any serious punishment against the first respondent. Since the first respondent has already retired from service, the learned single Judge ordered payment of pensionary benefits to her. Further there is also directions to recover the amount of loss caused by the first respondent, that is Rs. 450/-from her. In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in the Delay Condonation Petition as well as Writ Appeal. Consequently, Delay Condonation Petition and Writ Appeal are dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (BHABANI PRASAD RAY) Judge. kk 4