IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 26TH OCTOBER 2010 / 4TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 29418 of 2010(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MARY JAIN P.C., HEADMISTRESS, ST.JOSEPH HIGH SCHOOL, CHATHEDAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.MATHEW SUNNY SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION) ERNAKULAM, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682 030. 4. THE CORPORATE MANAGER, CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, DIOCESE OF KOTTAPPURAM, KOTTAPURAM P.O., KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 667. ADV. SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH FOR R4 SRI.SHERRY J. THOMAS FOR R4 MS.NISHA BOSE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.29418 OF 2010 ------------------------------ Dated this the 26 th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT The case of the petitioner is the following: During the period from 1.4.2006 to 15.9.2008, the petitioner was working as Headmistress of St.Mary's High School, Palliport, under the management of the 4 th respondent. There was an allegation that the petitioner manipulated the records, prepared the fake salary bill in respect of a teacher who had availed leave without allowance, drawn a total sum of Rs.25,529/- and misappropriated that amount. Criminal law was set in motion against the petitioner. The Deputy Director of Education, as per Ext.P1 order dated 3.4.2009 directed the Manager to place the petitioner under suspension. The Manager sent Ext.P2 reply to the Deputy Director of Education to reconsider the proposal. In Ext.P2, it was stated W.P.(C).No.29418 OF 2010 2 that the petitioner was transferred from St.Mary's High School, Palliport. Thereafter, the Deputy Director sent Ext.P3 communication dated 5.6.2009 to the Manager directing the Manager to take disciplinary action against the petitioner. It was also mentioned in Ext.P3 that as there was no chance for the petitioner to tamper with the records, it was not necessary to place the petitioner under suspension. 2. Thereafter, Ext.P4 memo of charges was issued to the petitioner to which, she submitted Exts.P5 and P6 replies. 3. It is stated that the Manager forwarded the memo of charges and replies to the Deputy Director of Education requesting to conduct a formal enquiry. It is stated that though the petitioner got a telephone call from the office of the Deputy Director to appear for the purpose of enquiry, no enquiry as such was conducted. Only some questions W.P.(C).No.29418 OF 2010 3 were put to the petitioner. It is stated that thereafter, the Manager issued Ext.P8 memo dated 5.2.2010 to the petitioner proposing to impose punishment of reversion permanently. The petitioner submitted Ext.P9 reply to Ext.P8. The Manager sought permission of the Deputy Director to revert the petitioner. The Deputy Director, without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, accorded sanction to revert the petitioner, as per Ext.P10 order dated 29.4.2010. Though the petitioner filed an appeal to the Director of Public Instruction against Ext.P10 order, the appeal was rejected as per Ext.P11 order dated 16.8.2010. Challenging Ext.P11 order, the petitioner filed Ext.P12 revision dated 20 th September, 2010 before the Government. The petitioner also filed Ext.P13 stay petition dated 18 th October, 2010 in Ext.P12 revision. Exts.P12 and P13 are pending disposal. 4. The reliefs prayed for by the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.29418 OF 2010 4 the Writ Petition are the following: i) to issue a Writ of Certiorari or such other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P10 order No.B1/6265/09 dated 29.4.2010 issued by the 3rd respondent as it is arbitrary, illegal and void; ii) to issue a Writ of Certiorari or such other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P11 order No.VI/40831/2010/DPI dated 16.8.2010 issued by the 2nd respondent as it is arbitrary and unsustainable; iii) to issue a Writ or Mandamus or order or direction to the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P12 Revision filed by the Petitioner as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a time limit that may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court; iv) to issue such other appropriate Writ, Order or direction as is deemed just and necessary in the circumstances of the case”. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the time being, the petitioner would be satisfied, if the first respondent is directed to dispose of Ext.P12 revision and also Ext.P13 stay petition expeditiously. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the W.P.(C).No.29418 OF 2010 5 Writ Petition is disposed of as follows: a) The first respondent shall consider Ext.P12 revision as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the Manager. b) The petitioner shall produce a copy of the Writ Petition and certified copy of the judgment before the first respondent. c) To facilitate the petitioner to move Ext.P13 stay petition and pray for an interim relief, the status quo order granted by this court on 24.9.2010 and which was extended thereafter will W.P.(C).No.29418 OF 2010 6 remain in force till 15 th November, 2010. It is made clear that I have not considered the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner and the 4 th respondent in the Writ Petition. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms