IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2008 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1929 WA.No. 301 of 2008 ---------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21/01/2008 IN W.P.(C).NO.420/2008. .................... APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------- THE MANAGER, V.K.N.M.V.H.S.S, VAYYATTUPUZHA, K.V.M.S.H.O, P.B.NO.9, RANNI P.O., 689672, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI. RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 AND 3: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. T.C.THULASIBAI, HEADMISTRESS AND PRINCIPAL (UNDER SUSPENSION) VKNMVHSS, VAYYATTUPUZHA, RESIDING AT PRAVIN VILLA, VAYYATTUPUZHA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PATHANAMTHITTA, AT THIRUVALLA. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BENNY GERVACIS, ADV. SRI.K.R.B.KAIMAL (SR.), ADV. SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.Balakrishnan Nair & P.N.Ravindran, JJ. ======================== W.A.No.301 of 2008 ======================== Dated this the 6th day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair,J. The second respondent in the writ petition is the appellant. He is the Manager of a Higher Secondary School. The first respondent herein is the Headmistress of his school. The writ petition was filed by the first respondent herein challenging Ext.P16 order of the Manager dated 20.9.2007 and also Ext.P22 order of the Deputy Director of Education approving the same, allowing the Manager to keep her under suspension beyond 15 days. On the motion made for interim relief in the writ petition, the learned single Judge passed the order under appeal on 21.1.2008 directing to reinstatement her in service as Headmistress. The appellant attacks the above order of the learned single Judge in this appeal contending that the exercise of discretion by the learned single Judge is wrong and is therefore liable to be interfered with. Having regard to the nature of the WA 301/08 -: 2 :- allegations against the Headmistress, appellant contends that it is only appropriate that she is kept under suspension while the enquiry proceedings are in progress. It is also submitted that the order of the Deputy Director of Education permitting to keep her under suspension beyond 15 days is legal and valid. 2. The first respondent would submit that in connection with the very same disciplinary proceedings, she was kept under suspension from 2.9.2002 to 14.7.2004 and a punishment of reversion to the post of High School Assistant was imposed on her on 5.7.2004. She was reinstated in service as Headmistress only on 29.7.2006. Practically, she was out of post of Headmistress for about 4 years from 2002, it is submitted. 3. We notice that the competent authority gave sanction for imposition of punishment of reversion for a period of one year. The petitioner was kept out of post of Headmistress for about two years from 5.7.2004. So, without going into the merits of the rival contentions, we feel that we should not interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned single Judge in staying the suspension of the petitioner. But the enquiry proceedings have to be completed expeditiously. So, we are WA 301/08 -: 3 :- inclined to direct the third respondent herein to complete the enquiry against the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The parties shall co-operate with the Enquiry Officer without taking unnecessary adjournments. If adjournments are sought without valid grounds, the Enquiry Officer will be free to proceed with the enquiry without granting such motion for adjournments. Writ appeal is disposed of as above. K.Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 6/3