IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 26TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 26676 of 2008(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ A.M.NAZEER, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. ABDULLA KOYA, MANAGER, LAJANATHUL MUHAMMADIYA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.E.HAMZA SRI.T.V.VIJAYARAJAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATIONS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, SANTHI NAGAR, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, CORPORATION BUILDINGS TRIVANDRUM. 4. SMT. E. SAFIYA BEEVI, HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHER, LAJANTHUL MUHAMMADIYA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, ALAPPUZHA. R1 TO 3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) 26676 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: SEPTEMBER 17, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the Manager of a Higher Secondary School. 2. It is stated that the 4th respondent, a teacher of the school, was suspended by Ext.P1 order. Thereafter by Ext.P2 memo of charges and statement of allegations were also filed, in respect of which the 4th respondent submitted Ext.P4 explanation. Subsequently by Ext.P5 petitioner requested the 3rd respondent to conduct a formal enquiry and submit report. There was no response and, therefore, Ext.P6 reminder was sent. Despite all these, there has not been any progress in the matter. 3. In the meantime, petitioner submits that the 4th respondent admitted the charges and apologized for the same by Ext.P7. Thereupon she was reinstated as Principal without prejudice to the continuance of the WP(C) 26676/08 2 enquiry. It is now stated that subsequently she has been reverted as HSA, in which post she is continuing. 4. In this writ petition the complaint is regarding the delay on the part of the 3rd respondent in processing Exts.P5 and P6 requests of the petitioner for the conduct of a formal enquiry. 5. If, as stated by the petitioner, on completion of the preliminary procedural aspects a request has been made for the conduct of a formal enquiry, there is no reason why the 3rd respondent should delay the matter inordinately. In view of this, I direct that the 3rd respondent shall take up and consider Exts.P5 and P6 and take necessary action thereon. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible. 6. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 3rd respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-