IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2010 / 6TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 21238 of 2010(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SANTHAKUMARI.K., ANGADICKAL, SADANAM, WEST OTHERA P.O., THIRUVALLA., H.S.A (SS), G.H.S ,PERINGORA P.O BY ADV. SRI.R.GIREESH VARMA SRI.V.K.GANGADHARAN SRI.P.SASIDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE PROJECT DIRECTOR, SARVA SIKSHA ABHIYAN, NANDAVANAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE STATE PROGRAMME OFFICER, SARVA SIKSHA ABHIYAN, NANDAVANAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT PROJECT OFFICER, SARVA SIKSHA ABHIYAN, THIRUVALLA P.O.-695 027. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, JAGATHY P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.DILIP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.21238 of 2010 ---------------------------- Dated 28th July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a High School Assistant. She had been deputed to the Sarva Siksha Abhiyan. The main grievance of the petitioner is that after terminating her deputation, she has been repatriated to the parent department. The said action was preceded by an enquiry. According to the petitioner, no proper opportunity was given to the petitioner to adduce evidence at the said enquiry. The petitioner has also an apprehension that if any auditing is conducted without her presence and without affording her a reasonable opportunity, it may ultimately cause hardship to the petitioner. With respect to the said aspect, in the light of the letter issued by the first respondent to the petitioner on 15.7.2010 the grievance of the petitioner has been substantially redressed. As per the said letter, the first respondent has requested the petitioner to intimate him regarding the convenience of the petitioner so as to fix a date for auditing. In short, it is evident from the said letter dated 15.7.2010 that the petitioner would be allowed to be present at the time of auditing. 2. With respect to the grievance of the petitioner regarding the enquiry that preceded the order by which she was repatriated to WP(C).No.21238/2010 2 the parent department, prima facie nothing is before this Court to arrive at a conclusion that the said enquiry was conducted for the purpose of imposing any punishment on the petitioner. In other words, there is nothing to show that, that was a disciplinary proceeding. If the said enquiry would entail any order that is prejudicial to the petitioner, in such event, before passing any such order, the petitioner shall be put a notice. Only after affording a proper opportunity to the petitioner any order which may likely to affect the petitioner based on such enquiry shall be passed. At any rate, it shall not workout stigmatic against the petitioner at present. With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of. C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS