IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2009 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 22 of 2009(S) ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.543/2008 Dated 15/07/2008 .................... PETITIONER(S): WRIT PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------------ J.VALSALA, W/O.VASUDEVAN NAIR,AGED 55 YEARS, SANSKRIT TEACHER, BEMUP SCHOOL, THRIKKEDERI, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.V.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS 1 & 3 IN THE WRIT PETITION: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. REV. PAUL DAVID THOTTATHIL, CORPORATE MANAGER, ALL C.S.I SCHOOLS IN MALABAR AND WAYNAD, BANK ROAD, CALICUT.(AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER). 2. SONGSTER MARTIN U., HEADMASTER, B.E.M.U.P SCHOOL, THRIKKEDERI, OTTAPPALAM. (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) R2 BY ADVS. MR.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA, MR.C.P.SIVADASAN NAIR. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- C.O.C.No.22 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT This contempt case is filed by the Writ Petitioner, a teacher, against the Manager and the Headmaster of the School alleging that the respondents willfully and deliberately violated the directions contained in the judgment and disobeyed the orders. 2. As per the order in the Writ Petition, the order passed by the Manager was quashed. It was held that when the Assistant Educational Officer passes an order under Sub Rule 8 of Rule 67 of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules, the Manager would have no jurisdiction to exercise his power of suspension under Rule 67(1) of Chapter XIV A or under Section 12(2) of the Kerala Education Act. It was also held that “the petitioner would be entitled to all the consequential benefits including arrears of salary and continuity in service”. 3. In spite of the judgment and in spite of the fact that the judgment was confirmed in Writ Appeal No.2180 of 2008, the Manager issued Annexure 7 order dated 23rd December 2008, the operative portion of which reads as follows: “In the above circumstances, by virtue of the COC 22 of 2009 2 powers vested in me as the Corporate Manager of all CSI Schools, after considering various aspects in totality, in the interest of justice and in the interest of education, I am imposing the following minor punishments to Smt.J.Valsala under the provisions of Rule 76 of Chapter XIV A of KER 1959. (a) To withheld two increments without cumulative effect for a period of one year effective from 18.12.2007(F.N.). (b) To treat the suspension period with effect from 18.12.2007 (F.N.) until the reinstatement on 5.6.2008 (F.N.) as ‘Leave Without Allowances’ and to convert the temporary reinstatement into regular reinstatement effective from 5.6.2008.” 4. Annexure 7 is justified by the Manager saying that his power to take disciplinary proceedings is not affected by the judgment in the Writ Petition and it is so made clear in the judgment in the Writ Appeal. However, clause (b) of Annexure 7 as quoted above is clearly in violation of the judgment. Probably realising this and realising the fact that there is no escape from the proceedings in contempt, the Manager, as a last resort, withdrew from his earlier stand and issued Annexure R1(a) dated 5.3.2009 deleting clause (b) from the last paragraph of Annexure 7. What remains is clause (a) of Annexure 7 which is unconnected with the prayer in the Writ Petition. Therefore, it cannot be said that the contempt case has to be proceeded with against the Manager, though technically speaking, Annexure 7 COC 22 of 2009 3 was issued in violation of the directions in the judgment in the Writ Petition. The Manager has tendered apology for the same. 5. As regards the Headmaster, he takes the view that he need not obey the orders of the court, but he need only obey the Manager. The Manager has now realised the mistake and has withdrawn from his earlier stand. But, the Headmaster does not know whether he should do so. Naturally, he will also follow the Manager as he has expressed his view earlier. The Headmaster has also tendered unconditional apology. I do not think it is necessary to proceed with the case. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge Annexure 7 order. It is made clear that the disposal of this Contempt Case would not be taken as an approval of the order withholding of increments. The Contempt Case is closed only since the barring of increments was not within the scope of the Writ Petition. The Contempt Case is disposed of as above. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl