IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 20808 of 2009(U) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ C.BALAKRISHNAN, H.S.A.(ENGLISH), S.D.V.HIGH SCHOOL, PERAMANGALAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV.MR.ELVIN PETER P.J. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR. 2. THE MANAGER, S.D.V.HIGH SCHOOL, PERAMANGALAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. R1 BYSR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT.T.B.REMANI R2 BY ADVS.MR.N.RAGHURAJ, SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/11/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 20809 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.20808/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD/ 12/3/08 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 26.3.08 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. P3:- COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DT. 2.4.08 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P4:- COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 18.4.08 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. P5:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT. 1.7.08 SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P6:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 2.7.08 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. P7:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 1.7.09 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R2(a):- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT. R2(a) (i):- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT. R2(a)(ii):- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT. R2(a)(iii):- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT. R2(a)(iv):- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT. R2(a)(v):- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT. R2(b):- COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DTD. 30.4.08 BEARING NO.21/08. R2(c):- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT MADE BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE. R2(d):- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BEARING NO.B5-2424/08 DTD. 2.7.08. R2(e):- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 10.7.08 BEARING NO.39/08. R2(f):- COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.B5-2424/08 DTD. 2.7.08. R2(g):- COPY OF THE REQUEST BEARING NO.22/09 DTD. 7.4.09. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). Nos.20808/2009-U & 20809/2009-U ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 11th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are aggrieved by Ext.P7 communication issued by the District Educational Officer to the effect that in respect of the suspension of the petitioners, a detailed enquiry is proposed to be conducted in the school on 30/07/2009. It is the case of the petitioners that already suspension has been cancelled and they have been reinstated in service and the respective periods have been regularised also. 2. Ext.P1 is the order by which the petitioners were suspended from service. Initially, the District Educational Officer by Ext.P2 order granted permission to keep them under suspension beyond the period of 15 days. But memo of charges were issued as per Ext.P3 to which they have filed Ext.P4 explanation. By Ext.P5, the Manager withdrew the orders of suspension with effect from 01/07/2008. It was also ordered that the period from 13/03/2008 to 01/07/2008 will be regularised as eligible leave. Therefore, the petitioners' contention is that an enquiry regarding the suspension has become unnecessary and the same is unwarranted. W.P.(C). Nos.20808/2009 & 20809/2009 -:2:- 3. The learned counsel for the Manager relying upon the averments in the counter affidavit submitted that even though the suspension was recalled, the disciplinary enquiry has not been started so far. In the light of the fact that the enquiry has to be proceeded with, the Manager as per letter dated 30/04/2008 had requested the District Educational Officer to complete the same. But, since the suspension was recalled, the enquiry was not conducted at that point of time. Ext.R2(g) is the letter referred to in Ext.P7. In the said letter [Ext.R2(g)], the Manager has only sought to complete the enquiry and to forward the report as per Ext.R2(b). The Manager had sought for further action under relevant Rules of Chapter XIV A K.E.R. 4. In that view of the matter, nothing turns up in Ext.P7. Actually, it was in relation to the conduct of disciplinary enquiry and not in relation to the suspension. Therefore, the apprehension of the petitioners that the issue of suspension has cropped up again is unjustified. The writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to take expeditious steps to complete the disciplinary enquiry, at any rate, within a period of five months. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms