IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2008 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 9587 of 2008(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. V. RAJENDRAN, S/O.S.VELAYUDHAN, AGED 53 YEARS, CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KRISHNA VIHAR, MULANKADAKONI, KOLLAM. 2. R. RENUKA BHAI, W/O. V.K.VIJAYA, AGED 54 YEARS, P.A. TO DEO, KOLLAM, RESIDING AT KSHEMA, VALIYAVILA, EDAMON P.O., PUNALUR. 3. D. DILEEP KUMAR, S/O. K.DIVAKARAN, AGED 48 YEARS, JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT, DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM, REVATHY, PADANORTH, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM. 4. PHILIP M.KOSHY, S/O. KOSHY PHILIP, AGED 33 YEARS, B.1 SECTION CLERK, OFFICE OF THE DEO, KOLLAM, MENADIYIL PUTHEN VEEDU,KANJAVELI P.O. KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION (N)DEPARTMENT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W.P.(C).No. 9587 of 2008-N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Dated this the 24th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T The first petitioner is the Chief Planning Officer, Office of the Director of Public Instructions (the then District Educational Officer, Kollam). The second petitioner is the Personal Assistant to the District Educational Officer. The third petitioner is the Junior Superintendent in the office of the D.E.O. The fourth petitioner is the Section Clerk in the office of the D.E.O. They are aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of suspension pending enquiry. A reading of Ext.P1 order will show that the Government has taken a tentative view that in preparing a report, in respect of Y.M.M.Central School, Chittumoola, Thazhava, for the purpose of issuance of NOC for CBSE/ICSE affiliation of schools, the District Educational Officer, Kollam, and Sub-ordinate Officers had totally ignored the presence of other CBSE/ICSE Schools functioning about 3 kms away from the Y.M.M Central School. According to the Government, omission is deliberate and purposeful and intended to defeat the educational policy of the Government. This action warrants disciplinary action. Government have decided to conduct a detailed enquiry. W.P.(C).No.9587 of 2008-N -: 2 :- 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the policy for 2006 was published only in August, 2006 and the inspection in question was done in June, 2006. May be this is so, but, even then there has been a Government policy for the previous years also and it cannot be said that an inspection team, headed by the District Educational Officer, could not have taken into account the presence of other schools in the Panchayat. At any rate, the finding in Ext.P1 is purely tentative and open to change if a motion is made in that behalf. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners thereafter submits that petitioners 2 to 4 are only sub-ordinate officers and, therefore, they cannot be held responsible for the report which is essentially authorised by the first respondent. May be this is true. Petitioners 2 to 4, who were included in the committee may have acted at the behest of the District Educational Officer. There is no reason why this factor should not be borne in mind by the Government at the appropriate stage. Ext.P1 order of suspension is purely tentative and pending enquiry. It is open to the petitioners to move for revocation in terms of Rule 6 of the K.C.S (CC&A) Rules, 1960. 4. Subject to this right, the writ petition is disposed of. Taking note of the fact that the second petitioner is due to retire on W.P.(C).No.9587 of 2008-N -: 3 :- 24/04/2008 if she moves for revocation of the order of suspension by the end of this month, orders on her application for her revocation shall be passed on or before 20/04/2008. If an application for revocation is filed by the other petitioners within three weeks, it shall be decided by the Government within two months thereafter. The writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, JUDGE ms