IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2010 / 22ND ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19049 of 2010(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.K.BALAKUMAR, S/O.NARAYANAN, AGED 60 YEARS,MANAGER, ACKIPARAMBA U.P.SCHOOL, CHIRAVAKKU, TALIPARAMBA,KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.E.HAMZA SRI.T.V.VIJAYARAJAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-1. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGATHY,TRIVANDRUM-14. 3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, TALIPARAMBA NORTH, KANNUR. 4. SMT.K.V.VASANTHA PRABHA, HEADMISTRESS(UNDER SUSPENSION),ACKIPARAMBA U.P. SCHOOL, CHIRAVAKKU, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.DILIP MOHAN FOR R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.19049 of 2010 ---------------------------- Dated 13th July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the Manager of Ackiparamba U.P. School, Chiravakku in Kannur District. The fourth respondent, the Headmistress of the said school, was placed under suspension by the petitioner based on certain allegations. The said fact was duly intimated to the appropriate authority as provided under the Kerala Education Rules. Thereafter, the Manager has requested the educational authorities for permission to continue with the suspension of the fourth respondent beyond 15 days. He has also requested the third respondent to conduct an enquiry and to submit a report to enable him to conclude the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the 4th respondent. In the matter of sanction to continue with the suspension beyond 15 days the third respondent has declined to grant such permission. In fact, after declining the same the petitioner was directed to reinstate the fourth respondent by revoking the order of suspension. Feeling aggrieved by the order to that effect in Ext.P6, the petitioner has preferred a revision petition under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education WP(C).No.19049/2010 2 Rules. Feeling aggrieved by the delay in the matter of disposal of the said revision petition he had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.33010 of 2009. As per Ext.P8 the same was disposed of with a direction to the Government to dispose of Ext.P7 revision petition and Ext.P7(a) stay petition. Pursuant to the same, Government have issued Ext.P9 order rejecting the revision petition filed by the petitioner. Ext.P9 carried a further direction to reinstate the fourth respondent in service. The petitioner submits that in compliance with the same the fourth respondent was reinstated in service. At the same time, Ext.P10 memo of charges has been served on the fourth respondent. She has submitted a reply to the same as per Ext.P11. Dissatisfied with the explanation submitted by the fourth respondent in Ext.P11, the petitioner submitted Ext.P12 request to the third respondent to conduct a detailed enquiry as contemplated under Rule 75 of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules and to furnish the enquiry report to enable him to finalise the disciplinary action initiated against the fourth respondent as per Ext.P10. Despite receipt of Ext.P12, no action whatsoever was taken by the third respondent. It is in the said circumstances that this writ petition has been filed. 2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the third respondent in this writ petition. According to the third respondent, he WP(C).No.19049/2010 3 has already conducted an enquiry and furnished Annexure R3(a) report to the petitioner. That apart, it is the contention of the third respondent that substantially the memo of charges dated 18.3.2010 and 22.3.2010 are one and the same and Annexure R3(a) was prepared after conducting a hearing on 26.3.2010. A perusal of Annexure R3(a) would show that the hearing held on 26.3.2010 was based on the memo of charges dated 18.3.2010 and 22.3.2010. Thus, evidently, no enquiry was conducted based on Ext.P10 memo of charges dated 19.2.2010. As per Annexure R3(a) the request of the petitioner to extend the suspension of the fourth respondent beyond 15 days alone was considered. That cannot be construed as an enquiry at all and if at all it can be considered as an enquiry, that pertains to the memo of charges dated 18.3.2010 and 22.3.2010. Thus, it can be seen that no enquiry, as requested by the petitioner as per Ext.P12, into the charges levelled against the fourth respondent as per Ext.P10 has so far been conducted by the third respondent. As per Ext.P12, the petitioner has requested for conducting such an enquiry into the allegations levelled as per Ext.P10. The statement contained nothing which would suggest that such an enquiry was conducted into the charges levelled against the fourth respondent as per Ext.P10. WP(C).No.19049/2010 4 In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the third respondent to conduct an eqnuiry as contemplated under Rule 75 of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules against the fourth respondent into the charges levelled as per Ext.P10 and furnish a report to the petitioner to enable him to finalise the disciplinary action initiated as per Ext.P10. This shall be done expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, in accordance with law, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the fourth respondent. C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS