IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 31ST OCTOBER 2008 / 9TH KARTHIKA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 1001 of 2007(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.29829/2006 Dated 06/03/2007 .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------------- JAYARAMACHANDRA KURUP, L.P.S.A. (UNDER SUSPENSION), C.S.U.P. SCHOOL, MARYKUNU, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.MANJERI SUNDERRAJ SRI.B.PREMNATH (E) RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. MRS.ELIAMMA, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, MANAGER, C.S.U.P. SCHOOL, GOVT. JUVENILE HOME (GIRLS), KOZHIKODE. 2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHEVAYOOR, KOZHIKODE. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Cont. Case (C) No.1001 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 31st day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT The writ petition was disposed of directing the second respondent herein to complete the inquiry within a period of two months from the date of the judgment. It was made clear that if the inquiry is not completed within a period of two months, the petitioner will be reinstated upon expiry of two months from the date of the judgment. The date of judgment is 6.3.2007. 2. An affidavit is filed by the second respondent, wherein it is stated that though three specific charges were framed, one charge was partially proved. It is further stated that after completing the inquiry, the inquiry report was forwarded to the first respondent Manager on 21.4.2007. But it is stated that the second respondent received a letter dated 28.4.2007 from the first respondent Manager on 30.4.2007 informing that the Manager is not satisfied with the inquiry conducted by the second respondent. In reply to the said letter, the second respondent issued a letter to the Manager on 2.5.2007 stating that inquiry was conducted after giving opportunity to the Manager to substantiate his case and the inquiry has been completed after complying all the formalities. The inquiry has been completed by COC. 1001/2007. 2 5.5.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that charge has not been proved and he is to be reinstated. 3. Being a contempt proceeding, under the law, the province of this court is to consider whether the judgment has been complied with or whether there is any willful disobedience of the judgment. Going by the affidavit of the second respondent, he has completed the inquiry. No doubt, apparently the first respondent has not accepted the report. It is also stated by the learned Government Pleader that subsequently the first respondent has also accepted the report and the matter is pending before the Educational authority seeking approval for removal. In the above circumstances, I need only close this contempt of court case without prejudice to all the contentions of the petitioner against the report and against any action purported to be taken on the basis of the report. Accordingly, the contempt proceeding is dropped. This will be without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to raise all the legal contentions before the appropriate forum. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb