IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2008 / 24TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 884 of 2008(E) ------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------ P.P. ANANTHANARAYANAN, DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.SHRIKUMAR RESPONDENT: ------------- THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS (GENERAL),THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).884/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 14th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner, who is presently working as District Educational Officer at Kanjirappally, is aggrieved by the initiation of disciplinary proceedings under Ext.P1 memo of charges dated 1.12.2007. The statement of allegations appended to the memo of charges seems to suggest that the petitioner did not take timely action against four teachers working in AUPS, Njangettiri, who submitted applications for leave without allowance along with medical certificate, for a period of almost one year. Thereafter, when the petitioner issued show cause notice to the same teachers, in his capacity as Assistant Educational Officer, Thrithala, they had approached this Court in Writ Petition No.27034/2007 challenging the validity and jurisdiction of the said show cause notice. This Court entertained the writ petition and there is a stay of further proceedings pursuant to such show cause notice. Apparently during the pendency of the said writ petition, applications for leave submitted by the concerned W.P.(C).884/2008 2 teachers came to be rejected by the Government and Writ Petition No.27034/2007 now involves a challenge against the order passed by the Government rejecting such application. 2. Mr.Shrikumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the Assistant Educational Officer, the petitioner's duty was only to forward the applications and to see whether the leave was in excess of the period of four months in terms of Rule 56 of Part I of KSR. According to him, he only forwarded the applications finding that leave might be admissible in terms of Rule 88 of Part I of KSR. He was incompetent to take any further action. Therefore he was awaiting orders from the Government. Petitioner cannot be faulted with for not taking any action, it is contended. 3. Mr.Nandakumar, learned senior Government Pleader submits that the question as to whether the petitioner had taken timely action against the teachers whose application for leave was in excess of the period W.P.(C).884/2008 3 of four months or whether there was dereliction of duty on the part of them are matters which require verification of facts. It cannot be said that there is lack of jurisdiction in the initiation of enquiry. 4. After having heard the learned counsel on both sides, I am of the view that Ext.P1 memo of charges does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction as such. Authority who has initiated disciplinary action is competent in terms of Kerala Civil Services (CC & A) Rules, 1960. Petitioner had submitted Ext.P4 explanation as well. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner is due to retire on 30.4.2008, I think it is appropriate that the disciplinary proceedings be finalised within the shortest time possible. 5. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to see that the proceedings initiated under Ext.P1 is finalized as early as possible at any rate on or before 15.3.2008. W.P.(C).884/2008 4 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he apprehends suspension for reasons which may be extraneous. Learned Government Pleader submits that there is no suspension so far and the petitioner cannot challenge an order which is yet to come into existence. I am of the view that the validity of suspension if any, is not a matter which arises for consideration at this stage. Therefore, I do not propose to deal with the said aspect in this writ petition. Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs