IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2010 / 30TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 30570 of 2010(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.V.MUNEER, ARABIC TEACHER, (UNDER SUSPENSION), CHERUVANNUR A.L.P.SCHOOL, CHERUVANNUR P.O., MEPPAYYUR (VIA), KOZHIKODE-673524 BY ADV. SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE MANAGER, CHERUVANNUR ALP SCHOOL, CHERUVANNUR PO, MEPPAYYUR (VIA), KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 524 2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MELADY, PAYYOLI, KOZHIKODE-673 523 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE-673 001 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001 BY G.P.SMT.NISHA BOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.30570 OF 2010 ------------------------------ Dated this the 22 nd day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner, a Full Time Arabic Teacher in Cheruvannur ALP School was placed under suspension as per Ext.P1 order dated 26.8.2004 issued by the Manager. The suspension was on the ground that the petitioner was involved in Crime No.258/04 of Perambra Police Station for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 341, 324 and 153A read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The Assistant Educational Officer conducted a preliminary investigation into the grounds of suspension as provided under sub rule 8 of Rule 67 of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules. The Assistant Educational Officer passed Ext.P3 order dated 17.9.2004 granting permission to the Manager to place the teacher under suspension beyond 15 days. The petitioner submitted a representation to the Hon'ble Minister, which was forwarded to the Deputy Director of Education, who passed Ext.P4 order W.P.(C).No.30570 OF 2010 2 dated 17.3.2005 rejecting the representation on the ground that it was not proper to interfere with the proceedings of the Manager so long as the criminal case is pending against the petitioner before the Court. 2. Alleging that the payment of subsistence allowance was discontinued, the petitioner filed WP (C) No.27564 of 2008, which was disposed of by Ext.P5 judgment dated 22.10.2009. At the time of hearing of WP(C) No.27564 of 2008, it was pointed out that the petitioner was continuing under suspension from 2004 onwards and that it was only just and proper to revoke the suspension. In Ext.P5 judgment, the learned Single Judge noticed this contention and held thus: “Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner had been under suspension from 2004 onwards the same may be ordered to be revoked. It is up to the petitioner to move any of the statutory authorities in the matter and if a representation is filed in this regard, the same will be considered in accordance with law.” W.P.(C).No.30570 OF 2010 3 3. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 representation dated 2.12.2009 to the Government. The Government as per Ext.P7 communication dated 23.12.2009 forwarded the representation to the Assistant Educational Officer. Thereafter, The Assistant Educational Officer submitted the representation to the Deputy Director of Education, since the Deputy Director is the authority to dispose of the representation in view of sub rule 9 of Rule 67 of Chapter XIVA KER. The Deputy Director of Education passed Ext.P9 order dated 7.8.2010 rejecting the representation. In Ext.P9 it is stated that C.C.No.177 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Perambra and C.C.No.430 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Mananthavady are pending trial in which the petitioner is an accused. Holding thus, the Deputy Director rejected the representation under Rule 79 of Chapter XIV A KER. W.P.(C).No.30570 OF 2010 4 4. Ext.P9 is under challenge in this Writ Petition. It is not necessary to decide the question whether the Deputy Director could have considered the representation under sub-rule 9 of rule 67 of Chapter XIVA or whether he could consider it as an appeal under Rule 79 of Chapter XIVA. At any rate, the petitioner has an alternative remedy of revision under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV A . Leaving open the right of the petitioner to file revision to the Government under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV A KER, the Writ Petition is closed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms