IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2010 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 10165 of 2010(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- O.K. PRABHAKARAN, ASSISTANT TEACHER, CHEMANCHERY - KOLAKKAD UP SCHOOL, YHUVVAKODE.P.O, KOYILANDY. BY ADV. SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. THE MANAGER, CHEMANCHERY - KOLAKKAD UP SCHOOL, THUVVAKODE.P.O, KOYILANDY. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.T.T.MAHAMOOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 10165 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 29th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a teacher in the 3rd respondent's school. The 3rd respondent initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. The Assistant Educational Officer conducted an enquiry and submitted a report. Based on that report, a show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner to show cause why the punishment mentioned therein should not be imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner challenges the enquiry as well as the show cause notice. According to the petitioner, the enquiry proceedings are vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice in so far as witnesses were not examined in the presence of the petitioner and the petitioner was not given an opportunity to cross examine those witnesses. He also complains of violation of the procedure prescribed under Rule 75 of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules. The petitioner, therefore, filed a revision petition before the Government. The petitioner seeks a direction to the Government to dispose of the same. 2. The learned Government Pleader points out that no revision would lie against the enquiry report in view of the Division Bench decision in W.A.No.2393/2008. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 2 4. I am of opinion that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the Division Bench decision in W.A.No.2393/2008. Of course the petitioner points out that in the decision in Cherian vs. Anna S.Varghese [1987 (1) KLT 301] the Division Bench has held that a revision against the enquiry report is maintainable at the instance of the manager. The counsel would submit that the very same remedy is available to the delinquent also. That question also was considered by the Division Bench in the above said decision and the Division Bench distinguished that decision also. It has been held that at every stage of the disciplinary proceedings the authority cannot interfere in so far as the remedy of the delinquent is to question the final order passed by the manager by filing appropriate proceedings. I am also of the opinion that the petitioner's remedy lies in challenging the final orders passed in the disciplinary proceedings, in which the petitioner can challenge the validity of the enquiry proceedings also. Therefore, without prejudice to that right, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 3