IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2009 / 28TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 37318 of 2008(P) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- U.B.M CHURCH A.L.P SCHOOL, HOSDURG, REP. BY ITS MANAGER DR.SANJEEV M.LAZER, UBMC ALP SCHOOL, HOSDURG, KANHANGAD P.O., KASARAGOD. BY ADV. MR.T.MADHU. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE ASST.EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, HOSDURG, KASARAGOD. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KANHANGAD, KASARGOD DISTRICT. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. P.V.CHANDRAN, HEAD MASTER (UNDER SUSPENSION), UBM CHURCH ALP SCHOOL, HOSDURG, KASARGOD DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT SAYOOJYA, BEHIND LC CHURCH, HOSDURG, KANHANGAD, KASARGOD. R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. T.B.REMANI, R4 BY ADV. MR.M.SASINDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2009, ALONG WITH W.P.(C). NO. 22615 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.37318/2008-P: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE BROCHURE ISSUED IN CONNECTION WITH THE 111TH YEAR CELEBRATION. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DTD. 03/04/2007 ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE ASST. EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, HOSDURG TO THE FORMER MANAGER OF THE SCHOOL. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 05/03/1986 ISSUED BY THE THEN ASST. EDUCATIONAL OFFICER TO THE THEN MANAGER OF THE SCHOOL. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 14/03/1986 SUBMITTED BY THE FORMER HEAD MASTER OF THE SCHOOL TO THE THEN AEO. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 11/04/2008 OF THE R.2. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE PRIVATE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FILED BY SMT. C.K. SUJATHA BEFORE THE LEARNED JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT, HOSDURG. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 15/11/2008 OF THE R.3. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). Nos.37318/2008-P & 22615/2009-V ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 20th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T These two writ petitions are filed by the Manager and the Headmaster (under orders of suspension) of U.B.M.C A.L.P School, Hosdurg respectively. 2. On the basis of certain complaints, the Headmaster, the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.22615/2009, was suspended from service. The order of suspension was approved by the Assistant Educational Officer. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted by the Assistant Educational Officer. Ext.P2 in W.P.(C).No.37318/2008 is the enquiry report. It is the case of the Manager that charge No.1 stands proved. Accordingly, the Manager proposed imposition of punishment of removal from service. Sanction was sought from the Assistant Educational Officer in the matter. It is evident from Ext.P5 produced in W.P.(C).No.22615/2009 that the District Educational Officer did not grant sanction for imposing the punishment stating that the gravity of the case is not grave enough to award the proposed punishment of removal from service. The Manager was directed to impose any other lesser punishment. Thereafter, the Manager proposed W.P.(C). Nos.37318/2008 & 22615/2009 -:2:- to impose the punishment of compulsory retirement and again the District Educational Officer, as per Ext.P6 produced in W.P.(C).No.37318/2008, refused to sanction the same. This was challenged by the Manager before the Government by Ext.P7 revision petition and by Ext.P9 the said revision petition stands dismissed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. 4. Going by the proceedings of the District Educational Officer as well as the order passed by the Government, it is evident that these are non speaking orders in the sense that nothing is discernible as to why the permission for imposition of proposed punishment was rejected. In Ext.P6 order passed by the District Educational Officer, the crucial sentence is the following:- “In this regard I am to inform you that the present proposal of punishment also is high comparing to the gravity of the charges. The permission to award this punishment is therefore rejected.” 5. While dismissing the revision petition, the Government came to the following conclusion:- W.P.(C). Nos.37318/2008 & 22615/2009 -:3:- “All the averments and arguments were examined in detail with the support of the documents available and connected records. It is found that the decision taken by the DEO Kanhangad at vide order No.B6 1911/07 dated 11/04/2008 is in order. Hence, the revision petition filed by the Manager deserves no merits and the same is rejected and is decided to up held the order of the DEO Kanhangad.” 6. It is clear that the Government was exercising the powers of revision while passing Ext.P9. Even then, cogent reasons have to be stated as to why the revision is being dismissed. The party availing of the remedy of revision is entitled to know why the revision petition is rejected and the reasons thereof. Since nothing is forthcoming in Ext.P9 by way of cogent reasons, the said order cannot be supported. The matter in question concerns the disciplinary proceedings taken against the Headmaster of the school. The relevant records have to be examined to find out whether the punishment proposed is proportionate or not. The decision of the Manager in regard to the penalty proposed is the one that requires sanction by the District Educational Officer. Herein the D.E.O has not chosen to give W.P.(C). Nos.37318/2008 & 22615/2009 -:4:- detailed reasons. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that the Government ought to have given reasons in support of the order Ext.P9. Since the same is absent, Ext.P9 is quashed. 7. There will be a direction to the Government to take a decision on Ext.P7 revision petition produced in W.P.(C).No.37318/2008 after hearing the petitioner and the fourth respondent within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Government will consider the same on merits in accordance with law and pass a reasoned order. In W.P.(C).No.22615/2009 the relief sought for is to implement the order passed by the Government and to reinstate the petitioner in service. In the light of the directions issued in W.P.(C). No.37318/2008, the reliefs sought for cannot be granted. Both the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms