IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2009 / 20TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 18487 of 2009(E) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- P.A. RAVICHANDRAN, S/O. AIYYA PILLAI, AGED 45 YEARS, HEAD MASTER (UNDER SUSPENSION) GOVT. U.P.SCHOOL VANDPERIYAR, IDUKKI DIST. BY ADV. MR.C.S.MANILAL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, IDUKKI AT THODUPUZHA. 3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PEERMADE, IDUKKI DIST. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, DIRECTORATE, TRIVANDRUM. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.K. RAMESH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/08/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 18487/2009-F APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER OF SUSPENSION DATED 17/04/2009. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE SERVICE BOOK OF SMITHA SANKER TO SHOW THAT SHE WAS ON MATERNITY LEAVE. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22/07/2008 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO SMT.SMITHA SANKER. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE CASH BOOK. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE UNDISBURSEMENT PAY REGISTER. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05/03/2009. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE LOCAL LETTER DELIVERY BOOK EVIDENCING SENDING OF EXT.P6. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 01/04/2009 ADDRESSED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06/04/2009 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE CHELLAN SHOWING REMITTANCE OF MONEY (Rs.914/-). EXT.P11: COPY OF THE CHELLAN SHOWING REMITTANCE OF MON EY (Rs.6, 643/-). EXT.P12: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF SERVICE BOOK. EXT.P13: COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM REPORTED ON 05/04/2009 IN THE DESHABHIMANI DAILY. EXT.P14: COPY OF THE EXPLANATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P15: COPY OF THE REQUEST FOR REVIEW THE SUSPENSION. EXT.P16: COPY OF THE REQUEST MADE BY THE VNDIPERIYAR GRAMA PANCHAYATH BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P17: COPY OF THE REQUEST MADE BY THE PARENT TEACHER ASSOCIATION BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P18: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF HONOUR ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P19: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 03/06/2009 IN WP(C) NO. 12594/2009. EXT.P20: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11/06/2009 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P21: COPY OF THE REQUEST MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 18/06/2009. EXT.P22: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/06/2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.18487 OF 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of August, 2009. J U D G M E N T Aggrieved by Exhibit P22 order passed by the 4th respondent, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. The petitioner while working as Headmaster was placed under suspension as per Exhibit P1. The main allegation raised against the petitioner is that he had not given the pay fixation arrear, increment arrear etc. to one of the teachers namely, Smt.Smitha Sanker. The complaint raised by the said person resulted in suspension and initiation of disciplinary action against the petitioner. 3. It is pointed out by the petitioner that it is solely because of the union rivalry that the complaint is generated. Apart from that, according to the petitioner, the allegations against him are not factually correct. The complainant was informed thrice by the petitioner to collect the amount, failing which the petitioner had to remit the amount back in the W.P.(C) No.18487/2009 2 treasury. She was on maternity leave. It is also contended that the same had been accounted in Exhibit P5 namely, undisbursement pay register. Exhibit P6 is relied upon to show that the petitioner had intimated the said teacher about the same which is supported by Exhibit P7 local delivery book also. 4. When the petitioner approached this Court earlier by filing W.P.(C)No.12594/2009, this Court by Exhibit P19 judgment directed the 4th respondent to pass orders on Exhibit P19 within a period of two weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. The above direction was issued after noticing the fact that the petitioner is relying upon various documents in support of his pleas. 5. In Exhibit P22, the 4th respondent concluded that in the light of the gravity of charge, suspension of the petitioner for the time being has to be continued. The main complaint raised by the petitioner as regards Exhibit P22 is that none of the documents produced by the petitioner in support of his plea of innocence have been considered and the question whether the W.P.(C) No.18487/2009 3 suspension should be continued or not has not been addressed with reference to the pleas raised by the petitioner. In the operative portion of Exhibit P22 order, what is recorded as a conclusion is the following: “On the basis of the hearing, considering the gravity of the charge it is decided to continue the suspension of Sri.Revi Chandran for the time being. In the meantime Administrative Assistant, o/o the Deputy Director of Education, Idukki is directed to submit a report to the undersigned after enquiry is to the facts of the case”. 6. It cannot be said that the 4th respondent has applied his mind to the contentions raised by the petitioner. No detailed reasons have been shown in support of the conclusions thus arrived at also especially since the petitioner had sought cancellation of the suspension on specific pleas. Therefore, the learned Government Pleader was directed to get instruction as to whether a fresh order could be passed in the matter after hearing the petitioner. It is submitted that a re-hearing can be conducted. It is also submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the conduct of the enquiry is being expedited also. W.P.(C) No.18487/2009 4 Hence Exhibit P22 is quashed. There will be a direction to the 4th respondent to pass appropriate orders on merits, after hearing the petitioner, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is disposed of as above. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp