IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2010 / 27TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18854 of 2010(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.C.PAULSON, H.S.A. (PHYSICAL SCIENCE & ANO) G.N.B. HIGH SCHOOL, KODAKARA, (RESIDING AT CHERUVATHOOR HOUSE, P.O.ELINJIPRA, THRISSUR-680 721). BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMSA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRU M-1. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGATHY, TRIVANDRUM-14. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-680 003. 4. THE HEADMASTER, G.N.B. HIGH SCHOOL, KODAKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 684. GOVERNMENT PLEADER: SRI.SANDESH RAJA-R1 TO R3 SMT.M.R.SREELATHA- R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.18854 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as High School Assistant (Physical Science) in G.N.B.H School, Kodakara. He is also the N.C.C Officer of the said School. The Headmistress of the said school served Ext.P1 memo dated 7.3.2009 on the petitioner and sought explanation from him on certain complaints received from some of the N.C.C cadets. According to the petitioner, the said allegations were earlier enquired into by the competent authorities of N.C.C. Directorate and, found baseless. On 15.5.2010, to his dismay and dejection, the petitioner received Ext.P12 order imposing on him the penalty of barring of two increments with cumulative effect. The petitioner assails the same on various grounds. 2. It is contended that besides Ext.P8, which is in fact a show cause notice, no memo of charges was served on the petitioner as contemplated under Rule 15 of Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules prior to the passing of Ext.P12 order. The petitioner was not served with the copy of the enquiry report and was not afforded with an opportunity of being heard, it is further contended. W.P.(C) NO.18854/2010 2 Raising such contentions, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P13 appeal dated 29.5.2010 before the second respondent. The said appeal is now, pending before the second respondent. 3. As already noticed hereinbefore, the petitioner has raised several contentions against Ext.P12 order in Ext.P13 appeal. Since Ext.P13 is a statutory appeal, the second respondent is bound to consider and pass orders on the same. In the circumstances, I do not think it necessary to look into the sustainability of Ext.P12 order at this stage. Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P13 appeal submitted by the petitioner expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment with notice to the petitioner. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.18854/2010 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C). NO.18854 /2010 JUDGMENT 17th June, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.18854/2010 4