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 18TH MARCH 2010 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1931 WA.No. 466 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.2551/2010 Dated 28/01/2010 .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------------- ISMAIL M., S/O. UNNIMOYIN HAJI, PRINCIPAL, RAHMANIYA VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL FOR HANDICAPPED, CALICUT (NOW UNDER SUSPENSION), MANGATT HOUSE, NEAR DEEPA THEATRE, POST MAVOOR, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE MANAGER, RAHMANIYA VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL FOR HANDICAPPED, CALICUT-5. 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE. 5. SHRI. M.A.BABY, HON'BLE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SMT.R.BINDU THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.466 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 18th March, 2010. J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioner is the appellant. He was the Principal of a Vocational Higher Secondary School. He is facing vigilance prosecution for the alleged misappropriation of funds. He is also facing disciplinary proceedings, based on the very same allegations. Pending enquiry into the charges levelled against the appellant, the Manager suspended him from service. That suspension was approved by the Deputy Director of Education. When the matter was pending in appeal before the Director, the appellant was ordered to be suspended by the Government, invoking its power under Section 12A of the Kerala Education Act, on the recommendation of the Vigilance Department. In view of the above developments, the appellant/petitioner approached this Court and as per the direction of this Court in Ext.P9 judgment, the Government considered whether he should be kept under suspension till the disciplinary proceedings were completed. The Government, by Ext.P11, took the view that he cannot be reinstated. But, as per WA NO.466/2010 2 the said order, the Government directed the Deputy Director of Education to complete the enquiry within two months and the Manager, on receipt of the report, to finalise the disciplinary action, within another two months. Challenging Ext.P11 and claiming reinstatement, pending further proceedings in the disciplinary action, the Writ Petition was filed. 2. The notes of the Deputy Secretary to Government and the Minister concerned were produced before this Court. The Deputy Secretary suggested reinstatement, pending completion of the disciplinary proceedings. The Secretary to Government concurred with that. But, the Minister, who saw the file, overruled their view and issued the impugned directions, as per Ext.P11. According to the appellant/petitioner, the direction of the Minister was vitiated by malafides and was unsustainable in law. But, the learned Single Judge took the view that in the absence of any supporting materials, the allegation of malafides cannot be upheld. The learned Judge repelled the other contentions also and dismissed the Writ Petition. Hence, this Writ Appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant canvassed WA NO.466/2010 3 those contentions, which were unsuccessfully raised before the learned Single Judge. Going by the facts of the case, we notice that the Government have taken a plausible view. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the Vigilance Department has informed the Government that it has no objection in reinstating the appellant, as the vigilance enquiry has already been completed. But, the Government are not bound by the opinion of the Vigilance Department. The Government can advert to all the relevant materials and take its own decision. The Minister is not bound by the notes of the Secretary. The Minister, who is answerable to the Legislature, can take appropriate decision, according to his views, on the facts placed before him. Therefore, the fact that the Minister issued Ext.P11 order, ignoring the views of the Secretary in his Department, is not a ground to assail the same. Going by the facts of the case, we think, the view that pending finalisation of the proceedings, it is not proper to reinstate the appellant in service, cannot be said to be irrational or a decision outside the jurisdiction of the Government. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the WA NO.466/2010 4 judgment under appeal. But, if the Deputy Director has not completed the enquiry as directed in Ext.P11, the appellant can move the Government for appropriate further orders, as mentioned in that order. Subject to this, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. tgs K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.466 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T Dated 18th March, 2010.