IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 8TH OCTOBER 2009 / 16TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 24451 of 2009(B) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ A.P.ABDU RAHIMAN, S/O.MOHAMMED, AGED 43 YEARS, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (ARABIC), NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL, KOLATHUR, MALAPPURAM, (RESIDING AT DARUSALAM, AKKARAPARAMBIL, P.O. KOLATHUR, MALAPPURAM-679 338). BY ADVS.MR. V.A.MUHAMMED MR.K.E.HAMZA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MALAPPURAM. 4. THE MANAGER, NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL, P.O.KOLATHUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. THE HEADMASTER, NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL, P.O.KOLATHUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.SREELATHA R4 & R5 BY ADV. MR.T.A.SHAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.24451/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DTD. 2.3.09. P2:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WP. 8265/2008 DT. 16.3.2009. P3:- COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.3021/09/G.EDN. OF THE GOVT. DTD. 18.7.09. P4:- COPY OF THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER DTD. 27.7.09. P5:- COPY OF THE DO. BEFORE THE DIST. EDL. OFFICER DTD. 27.7.2009. P6:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.45786/S2/09/G.EDN. OF THE GOVERNMENT DTD. 3.8.09. P7:- COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WPC. NO.22851/09 DTD. 11.8.09. R4(a):- COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DTD. 10.7.08. R4(b):- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 11.7.08 SUBMITTED BY THE HEADMASTER. R4(c):- COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DTD. 12.7.08. R4(d):- COPY OF THE ORDER OF SUSPENSION DTD. 12.7.08. R4(e):- COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS. R4(f):- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 28.7.08 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. R4(g):- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 28.7.08 OF THE MANAGER. R4(h):- COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 23.7.08 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. R4(i):- COPY OF THE FIR AND THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.286/08 OF KOLATHUR POLICE STATION. R4(j):- COPY OF THE STATEMENT DTD. 12.12.08 SUBMITTED BY THE CONCERNED STUDENT BEFORE THE ENUIRY OFFICER. R4(k):- COPY OF THE DETAILED STATEMENT DT. 12.12.08 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE ENUIRY OFFICER. R4(l):- COPY OF THE REPORT OF ENUIRY CONDUCTED ON 12.12.08. R4(m):- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 12.1.09. R4(n):- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 13.1.09. R4(o):- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 29.6.2009. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.24451/2009-B ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 8th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Aggrieved by Ext.P6 order passed by the Government, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition. 2. As per Ext.P6, the Government has granted a stay of Ext.P3 order passed by the Government itself. The petitioner is an aided school Teacher. He was placed under suspension by the Manager on certain allegations. A preliminary enquiry was conducted by the District Educational Officer and permission was granted to extend the period of suspension beyond 15 days. Subsequently, a memo of charges was issued to the petitioner and enquiry report was also filed. The petitioner herein sought reinstatement in service after cancelling the order of suspension. By Ext.P3, the Government considered the plea raised by the petitioner and directed to complete the disciplinary action as per the rules within two months and to reinstate him in service. 3. Later, it appears that the Manager again approached the Government by filing a review petition and accepting the said petition, Ext.P6 interim order is passed. It is contended by the learned counsel for W.P.(C). No.24451/2009 -:2:- the petitioner that once the Government has finally disposed of the matter in exercise of the powers of revision under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV-A of K.E.R, the power under Rule 93 is not available to the Government. Therefore, the substantial contention raised is that Ext.P6 is passed without jurisdiction. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the Manager. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the Manager that the reinstatement ordered cannot be supported for various reasons and the enquiry is already over and permission has been sought to impose the punishment of compulsory retirement. I am not going into the merits of the matter now, in the light of the legal position decided by a Full Bench of this Court in Anilkumar v. State of Kerala [2009 (3) KLT 650 (F.B)]. This Court held in the above decision that the Government has no power to entertain a review petition under Rule 93 against an order passed in revision under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV-A of K.E.R and once the power of appeal or revision has already been exercised by the Government, a further review under Rule 93 cannot be exercised by the Government. W.P.(C). No.24451/2009 -:3:- 5. In the light of the said legal position, Ext.P6 cannot survive and the same is quashed. The writ petition is allowed to the above extent. The contentions of the parties are left open. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms