IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2010 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 13238 of 2010(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.RADHAKRISHNAN,S/O.SANKARA KURUP, AGED 47 YEARS, HEAD MASTER, NARIKKATTIRI L.V.L.P. SCHOOL,ARUR P.O, KAKKATTIL VIA, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.C.P.SIVADASAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,KOZHIKODE. 2. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,NADAPURAM, KALLACHI P.O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. MANAGER, NARIKKATTIRI L.V.L.P.SCHOOL, ARUR P.O, KAKKATTIL VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.DILIP MOHAN-R1,R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2010, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 14627 OF 2010 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NOS.13238 & 14627 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT In the former Writ Petition, the petitioner is raising grievances against the denial of salary from December 2009 onwards. The grievance raised in the latter Writ Petition is pertaining to the imposition of penalty of reversion from the post of Headmaster to the post of L.P.S.A. 2. The petitioner is presently working as Headmaster in L.V.L.P School, Arur in Kozhikode District. Disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner as per Ext.P8, culminated in the aforesaid punishment of reversion. The petitioner has already approached the appellate authority viz., the fourth respondent by filing Ext.P20 appeal on being aggrieved by Ext.P15 order dated 7.12.2009 and Ext.P19 dated 11.3.2010. The main contention of the petitioner is that the said punishment of reversion has been imposed even without conducting an enquiry as contemplated under Rule 75 of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules with notice to him. That apart, it is his contention that no prior permission was obtained for imposing the aforesaid penalty. He has W.P.(C) Nos.13238 & 14627/2010 2 also taken up various other contentions in Ext.P20 appeal including the one that in the appeal which was filed before the first respondent, the originally imposed penalty of reduction to the post of L.P.S.A for two years as per Ext.P15 order was enhanced as a perpetual reversion from the said post as per Ext.P19 order. In fact, Ext.P15 order was challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P.(C).No.37394/2009 and pursuant to the judgment thereon of the first respondent, after hearing all the parties, passed Ext.P19 order on Ext.P16 appeal. Be that as it may, the points now raised are matters for consideration of the appellate authority and the appellate authority is competent to look into the illegality and irregularity with respect to the manner in which the enquiry has been conducted and also the manner in which the punishment was imposed on the petitioner. Therefore, without making any observation as to the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner, W.P.(C) No.14627/2010 is disposed of with a direction to the fourth respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P20 appeal submitted by the petitioner expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Considering the contentions that no enquiry was conducted with notice to the petitioner and that the penalty was enhanced without W.P.(C) Nos.13238 & 14627/2010 3 notice, there will be a direction to the fourth respondent to afford the petitioner an opportunity of being heard before disposing Ext.P20. It is the assertion of the petitioner that the order imposing the aforesaid penalty on him was passed without conducting an enquiry as contemplated under Rule 75 of Chapter XIV A with notice to him. Hence, Ext.P1 implementation of the said penalty is stayed for the time being so as to enable the fourth respondent to consider the said aspects and pass orders on the stay petition in case the petitioner files such a stay petition within one week from today in Ext.P20. Necessarily the fate of the Writ Petition No.13238/2010 is entirely dependent on the orders to be passed in terms of the above direction. Hence, no separate orders need be passed in the latter Writ Petition. Accordingly, W.P.(C).No.14627/2010 is disposed of as above and W.P.(C).No.13238/2010 is closed. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) Nos.13238 & 14627/2010 4 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C). NOs. 13238 & 14627 /2010 JUDGMENT 27th May, 2010