IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2009 / 1ST SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 20635 of 2009(Y) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- PUNDALIKA KAMATH, S/O.LATE H.VENKATESH KAMATH, COMPUTER TEACHER, CHINMAYA VIDYALAYA, ATHIYAMBOOR, KANHANGAD. BY MR.M.SASINDRAN, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE REGIONAL OFFICER, CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, CHENNAI. 2. THE SECRETARY, CHINMAYA MISSION EDUCATIONAL & CULTURAL TRUST (KANNUR), KANHANGAD UNIT MANAGING COMMITTEE, KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 3. THE MANAGING COMMITTEE, KANHANGAD UNIT, CHINMAYA MISSION EDUCATIONAL & CULTURAL TRUST (KANNUR), KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. BY MR. DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, SC, CBSE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.20635 OF 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is working as Computer Teacher in Chinmaya Vidyalaya, Kanhangad which is an school managed by the Chinmaya Mission Educational and Cultural Trust, Kannur. The school is affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education (shortly stated as CBSE). 2. The petitioner has been issued a charge memo by Exhibit P1 containing various charges against him. He subsequently filed a reply to the same as per Exhibit P2. Thereafter an enquiry officer has been appointed to conduct a disciplinary enquiry into the allegations raised against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the enquiry officer acted in a biased manner. 3. The contention that is taken substantially by the petitioner is that a proper Managing Committee of the school is W.P.(C) No.20635/2009 2 not in office and only by resort to Clause 20 of the bye laws, a Managing Committee consisting of such members should be in office. The contention that is developed is that an incompetent body has decided to take disciplinary action against the petitioner and the action itself cannot be maintained. 4. The petitioner has presently filed a representation before the 1st respondent as per Exhibit P5, a copy of which is addressed to the 2nd respondent also. It is prayed that the 1st respondent may be directed to look into the complaint raised by the petitioner in Exhibit P5. Admittedly, disciplinary action is taken by the school concerned which is only pending. Whether the 1st respondent is competent to interfere with the matter at this stage is a question which has to be gone into by the 1st respondent. Since the petitioner has got certain grievances regarding initiation of disciplinary proceedings, I direct the 1st respondent to consider Exhibit P5 in accordance with law with notice to W.P.(C) No.20635/2009 3 petitioner and the Management and communicate the decision to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. At this stage, this Court is not expressing anything on the merits of the matter also. This writ petition is disposed of as above. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp