IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 27TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 35026 of 2008(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.IBRAHIMKUTTY, S/O.SAINUDHEEN(LATE) POOPARAMBIL HOUSE PO.KAPPUR, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM. 2. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR 3. SUB TREASURY OFFICER, CHAMGARAMKULAM, MALAPPURAM. 4. HEADMASTER, GOVERNMENT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KOKKUR PO., MALAPPURAM. 5. T.C.MATHAI, PRINCIPAL, M.V.M. RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL, ALAMCODE PO., MALAPPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.T.MOHAMOOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.35026/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT The allegation in this writ petition is against the 5th respondent that he had misappropriated PTA funds of the school, of which the 4th respondent is the Headmaster. Petitioner submits that an enquiry was conducted by the 2nd respondent into the said allegation and that he had submitted a report to the 4th respondent affirming the correctness of the allegation. According to the petitioner, while the matter was pending as above, the 5th respondent has retired from service also. It is stated that in order to realize the allegedly misappropriated amount, the second respondent has ordered the Headmaster to issue liability certificate and to initiate recovery proceedings. The complaint in this writ petition is that thereafter there has WP(c).No.35026/08 2 not been any further action taken in the matter as directed by the DEO. Although, at this stage this court is not required to pronounce on the correctness or otherwise of the allegations raised by the petitioner as above, it is only appropriate that if DEO has issued an order as asserted by the petitioner, necessary action shall be taken by the 4th respondent. Therefore, it will be open to the petitioner to produce a copy of the judgment before the 4th respondent and on production thereof, the 4th respondent shall do the needful in accordance with law. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(c).No.35026/08 3