IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2008 / 29TH ASWINA 1930 W.P(C).No. 30997 of 2008(M) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- K.SASEENDRAN, S/O. SRI. CHAPPAN PANICKER, P.D.TEACHER, NOW UNDER ORDERS OF TRANSFER FROM VAT TOLI GOVT. U.P.S. KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT, RESIDING AT KAPPIYIL HOUSE, MOKERI P.O. KAKKATTIL (VIA) KOZHIKODEDISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.K.BALACHANDRAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALAREPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERALEDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KUNNUMMAL SUB DISTRICT, VADAKARA EDUCATIONAL DISTRICT, KOZHIKODE REVENUE DISTRICT. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOZHIKKODE. 4. T.RAJAN, HEADMASTER, GOVT, U.P.S. VATTOLI. 5. A.KRISHNAN, KAPPIYIL HOUSE, MOKERI P.O. KAKATTIL VIA, KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. A.J. VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 30997 OF 2008 (M) ==================== Dated this the 21st day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a PD teacher working in the Government UP School, Vattoli since 13/11/2006. While so, Ext.P1 memo alleging misconducts was issued to the petitioner by the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent also has filed Ext.P2 complaint to the 3rd respondent and even according to the petitioner, the 5th respondent also had sought his transfer. 2. Be that as it may, following the allegations of misconduct, memo of charges was issued and the petitioner was also placed under suspension by Ext.P3. Petitioner submitted Ext.P4 explanation and finally by Ext.P7, punishment of censure was imposed. Petitioner submits that he has not been reinstated in the school following Ext.P7. 3. In my view, the grievance basically is against Ext.P7 and if that be so, the statute itself provides a remedy of appeal. I see no reason for the petitioner to bypass the statutory remedies and invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court. Petitioner may avail of the statutory remedy and without prejudice to that right, the writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp