IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 5TH JULY 2010 / 14TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 28354 of 2008(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- INDIRA DEVI, ASWATHI HOUSE, IRINGAL.PO, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.BALASUBRAMANYAN SRI.NIRMAL. S RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA WOMEN'S COMMISSION REP.BY THE CHAIR PERSON, VAN ROOS JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-34. 2. THE ASST.EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, VADAKARA. 3. K.K.RAMACHANDRAN, ASST.TEACHER (UNDER SUSPENSION) CHARUTHA, KUTTOTI KEESHIL, VADAKARA, CALICUT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.K.RAMESH FOR R2 ADV.POOVATHIL ABDUL KAREEM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 28354/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD.26.7.06. P2. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.26.4.06. P3. COPY OF THE COMPLAINT TO R1. P4. COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER DTD.31.10.07. P5. COPY OF THE STAY ORDER IN W.P.(C).No. 36112/2007 OF THIS COURT. P6. COPY OF THE ORDER BY R1 DTD.5.8.08. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 28354 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 5th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a teacher in Thazhekkalari U.P. School at Iringal, Vadakara. She filed a petition before the Kerala Women's Commission, viz., Ext.P3, against the 3rd respondent, which was dismissed by the Women's Commission, by Ext.P6 order, holding that since in respect of the very same complaint, the High Court had already confirmed the order of the AEO directing reinstatement of the 3rd respondent against whom Ext.P3 complaint was filed, the Women's commission cannot take action in the matter. The petitioner would contend that the reason stated in Ext.P6 order is totally misconceived. According to the petitioner, the management of the school proceeded against the 3rd respondent in respect of several acts of misconducts including some of the misconducts stated in Ext.P3 and the AEO found the 3rd respondent guilty of all misconducts including this particular misconduct stated in Ext.P3 and thereafter, directed the management to reinstate the 3rd respondent by imposing a minor punishment. Against that order, the management filed an appeal before the DEO, who set aside the direction to reinstate the 3rd respondent with minor punishment and permitted the manager to complete the disciplinary w.p.c.28354/08 2 proceedings in accordance with law. That order of the DEO was challenged by the 3rd respondent in W.P.(C).No.34020/2007, in which, without setting aside the order of the DEO, a learned Judge of this Court permitted the manager to file a revision petition before the Government and the Government was directed to consider that revision petition in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, Ext.P4 order was passed confirming the order of the AEO. Ext.P4 order was challenged by the manager before this Court, in which, by Ext.P5 interim order, this Court granted an interim stay of Ext.P4 order. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, contrary to the finding in Ext.P6, the 3rd respondent was actually found guilty of all the misconducts including misconduct stated in Ext.P3 by the AEO himself, which has been confirmed by Ext.P4 order. Nobody has ever interfered with the finding of guilt entered, by the AEO on the 3rd respondent. In fact the subsequent litigation was only in respect of the direction to reinstate the 3rd respondent by imposing a minor punishment. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that W.P.(C). No.36112/2007 filed by the manager of the school against Ext.P4 order was allowed by this Court and after setting aside the direction to reinstate the 3rd respondent, imposing a minor punishment, the manager was permitted to complete the enquiry proceedings as w.p.c.28354/08 3 contemplated under Rule 75 of Chapter XIV-A of the KER. The learned counsel for the petitioner would, therefore, submit that since Ext.P6 order has been passed by the Women's Commission on a mistaken premise, Ext.P6 order is liable to be quashed and the Women's Commission is liable to be directed to reconsider Ext.P3 complaint in accordance with law. 2. The counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent appears today and submits that the 3rd respondent had no notice of the writ petition at all. He also found fault with this Court for hearing the writ petition without issuing notice to the 3rd respondent. But from the records of the case, I find that as early as on 13.11.2008, this Court passed the following order: “Govt. Pleader takes notice for R1 and R2. Sri.Poovathil Abdul Kareem takes notice for R3.” In fact, thereafter, this case was posted on 17 dates along with two other connected cases, one filed by the manager of the school and the other filed by the 3rd respondent himself, in which the very same advocate was appearing for the 3rd respondent. It is only after pronouncing the judgment on the other two writ petitions, I posted this case alone separately in the presence of the very same advocate. At no point of time the counsel ever raised a contention that the 3rd respondent did not receive notice in this writ petition. In view of the w.p.c.28354/08 4 fact that the counsel had taken notice on behalf of the 3rd respondent as early as on 13.11.2008, this case was posted along with the other two cases. Admittedly, the very same counsel is appearing for the 3rd respondent in all the cases. It is not fair on the part of the counsel for the 3rd respondent to submit that he had no notice about this writ petition. Instead of asking for time, he only tried to find fault with the Court for hearing the case without issuing notice to the 3rd respondent without even caring to ascertain the facts correctly. In the above circumstances, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. I have no doubt in my mind that Ext.P6 has been passed on a wrong premise. At no point of time this Court had ever upheld the order of the AEO as found in Ext.P6 order. On the other hand, the issue was always live. Moreover, even in the AEO's order, which the Commission found wrongly that this Court had upheld, the finding is that the allegations against the 3rd respondent have been proved, which include some of the allegations raised in Ext.P3. Even the 3rd respondent has no case that the findings of the AEO have been set aside at any time by anybody. Only when the management challenged Ext.P4 order before this Court, he chose to challenge the AEO's order by filing another writ petition which has been dismissed by this Court recording his submission that he can w.p.c.28354/08 5 challenge the same when punishment is imposed on him. That being so, there cannot be any doubt that Ext.P6 order has been passed on a wrong premise. Consequently, Ext.P6 order is quashed. The Women's Commission is directed to reconsider Ext.P3 complaint in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. The writ petition is allowed as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge