IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2010 / 7TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 32364 of 2008(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.C.GEETHA, S/O.E.N.SADASIVAN, AGED 52 YEARS, SANGEETH, MAVOOR P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.G.BHASKAR SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, CALICUT. 2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOZHIKKODU RURAL, PUTHIYARA, CALICUT - 673 004. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.DILIP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T.RAVIKUMAR,J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.32364 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as Headmistress of Mavoor G.U.P.School. This writ petition was originally filed challenging Ext.P4 and P6. As per Ext.P4 notice the petitioner was required to repay an amount of Rs,14,747/-, alleged to have been spent unauthorisedly by her. In response to Ext.P4, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P5. As per Ext.P5 the petitioner pointed out that the quantification of the liability was not in accordance with any known procedure and, in fact, she is not liable to repay any amount. Subsequently, Ext.P6 show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to explain as to why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against her. During the pendency of this writ petition the 1st respondent has issued Ext.P8 dated 16.6.2010, which is in fact, a notice proposing to impose the penalty barring of two increments with W.P.(C) NO.32364 OF 2008 2 cumulative effect on the petitioner. The petitioner was asked to submit objections, if any, with respect to the said proposal within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of Ext.P8 order. The petitioner has already submitted Ext.P9 in response to Ext. P8. 2. Though this Writ Petition was filed on 3.11.2008 it was ordered on 4.11.2008 to post the same when moved. It has been moved thereafter, only in July, 2010. No interim order has been passed in this Writ Petition. In fact, it was not admitted. In short, there was no impediment for the continuance of the disciplinary proceedings. The respondents who continued with the proceedings have now issued only a notice intimating the petitioner of the proposal and calling explanation as to why it should not be implemented. That apart, going by the conduct of the proceedings, she has also taken Ext.P8 only as a notice lest she would not have filed Ext.P9 in response to Ext.P8. Evidently Ext.P8 order is only a proposal. The petitioner has W.P.(C) NO.32364 OF 2008 3 already submitted Ext.P9 reply to the said show cause notice. Necessarily, the 1st respondent has to finalise the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner after considering Ext.P9 reply submitted by the petitioner. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders after taking into consideration in Ext.P9 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. pm