IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2010 / 1ST POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 33916 of 2010(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.MOHANAN (HEAD MASTER UNDER SUSPENSION, CHEMBILODE CENTRAL L.P.SCHOOL) KUNHIMVALAPPIL HOUSE, THALAVIL,PODUVACHERI P.O., PIN 670 621. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KANNUR, PIN 670 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KANNUR NORTH, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN 670 001. 3. THE MANAGER, CHEMBILODE CENTRAL L.P.SCHOOL, MOWANCHERRY P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN 670 621. ADV. SRI.C.KHALID FOR R3 SRI.N.GOPINATHA PANICKER FOR R3 SRI.T.P.SAJID FOR R3 SMT.P.S.MAHESWARI FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 33916/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.7.2010 IN C.C.NO.235/2005 OF CJM, THALASSERY. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF DW1 IN C.C.NO.235/2005 ON THE FILE OF CJM, THALASSERY. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 9.9.2010 IN WPC NO.28016 OF 2010 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.10.2010 OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : EXT.R3 (a) : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW3 SHYLAJA. EXT.R3(b) : COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION NO.37/2010 DATED 14.10.10 BEFORE THE SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE K.T.SANKARAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.33916 of 2010 L ------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner was working as Headmaster in Central L.P. School, Chembilode. The Manager placed the petitioner under suspension with effect from 22.2.2005 on the ground that Crime No.72 of 2005 was registered against the petitioner by Chakkarakal Police. Later, charge sheet was filed and the case was taken on file as C.C.No.235 of 2005 on the file of the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery. After trial, the petitioner was acquitted as per Exhibit P1 judgment dated 17.7.2010. On the basis of Exhibit P1 judgment, the petitioner sought reinstatement. He approached the Assistant Educational Officer for that purpose. Alleging that the Assistant Educational Officer was not taking a proper decision, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.28016 of 2010, which was disposed of as per Exhibit P3 judgment dated 9.9.2010. In Exhibit P3 judgment, this Court directed the Assistant WPC No.33916 of 2010 2 Educational Officer to consider and pass orders on the representation submitted by the petitioner. 2. On the basis of Exhibit P3 judgment, the Assistant Educational Officer passed Exhibit P4 order dated 18.10.2010 directing the Headmaster to reconsider the order of suspension and the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in the light of the decision rendered by the Chief Judicial Magistrate's court. The grievance of the petitioner is that Exhibit P4 order was not complied with by the Manager within the time stipulated in Exhibit P4. 3. In Exhibit P4, the Manager was directed to take a final decision within two weeks from the date of receipt of Exhibit P4. The only prayer made by the petitioner in this Writ Petition is to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the second and third respondents (The Assistant Educational Officer and the Manager respectively) to comply with the direction in Exhibit P4 order forthwith. WPC No.33916 of 2010 3 4. The third respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that the acquittal of the petitioner was not legal and proper. It is also stated that a revision was filed against the order of acquittal. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent that the acquittal of the petitioner was not an honourable acquittal and that the acquittal by itself is not a ground for reinstating the petitioner or dropping the disciplinary proceedings. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no disciplinary proceedings are pending against the petitioner and therefore, there is no justification for not reinstating the petitioner. The Manager cannot place the petitioner under suspension for indefinite period. So long as there is no disciplinary proceedings, suspension by itself should not be treated as a punishment. 6. It is not necessary to consider the rival contentions put forward by the parties. As mentioned above, the Assistant WPC No.33916 of 2010 4 Educational Officer has directed the Manager to reconsider the whole issue and to pass appropriate orders. The Manager has to comply with the same. He has not done so. The only relief which is required for the time being, is to direct the Manager to comply with Exhibit P4 order. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The Manager shall pass appropriate orders as directed in Exhibit P4 order passed by the Assistant Educational Officer. The Manager shall take a final decision on or before 15.1.2011. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl