IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2008 / 3RD ASHADHA 1930 WA.No. 1232 of 2008() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.3973/2000 Dated 28/02/2008 .................... APPELLANT/ 5TH RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------------- K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, KALAYANKULATH HOUSE.P.O., CHERAPURAM, VIA., KAKKATTIL, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GOVIND K.BHARATHAN (SR.) SRI.C.P.KUNHIKANNAN SRI.S.K.MADHU RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 AND 6 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE MANAGER, AMUP SCHOOL, PALIKKAL, KONDOTTY SUB DISTRICT, MALAPPURAM 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MALAPPURAM 5. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATUIONAL OFFICER KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM 6. THE HEADMASTER, AMUP SCHOOL, PALLIKKAL, PALLIKKAL PO., KONDOTTY SUB DISTTRICT MALAPPURAM BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SANDESH RAJA -R2 TO R4 ADV. SRI.T.K.MARTHANDAN UNNITHAN - R1 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B. KOSHY & P.N. RAVINDRAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- W.A.NO.1232 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of June, 2008. JUDGMENT Koshy, J: The 5th respondent in the writ petition was a teacher in a school managed by the writ petitioner. The 5th respondent was appointed with effect from 1.6.1992. From 1995 onwards, the 5th respondent started absenting himself without leave. Therefore, the Headmaster requested the Manager to take action as can be seen from Ext.P1. By Ext.P2 letter, the Headmaster informed the Manager that the 5th respondent is continuing his unauthorised absence. By Ext.P3 letter the Manager was asked to show cause why appropriate action should not be taken against the appellant for the unauthorised absence. By letter dated 31.10.1997, the appellant/5th respondent in the writ petition intimated the Manager that he could not attend classes from 1.10.1997 onwards and no application for leave was submitted since his child was not well. He also promised that he will not go on unauthorised leave in future. By Ext.P5 the Headmaster informed the appellant that he cannot be granted the leave applied for by him and in the previous year he W.A.NO.1232/08 . 2 attended the school only for 51 days and the students in his class could not be taught their lessons properly. There were complaints from students and parents. AEO by Ext.P6 letter directed the Manager to take appropriate action based on Exts.P6(a), P6(b) and P6(c). He continued to take unauthorised leave. Thereafter Ext.P7 show cause notice was issued to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for the misconduct of insubordination, unauthorised absence etc. To that, appellant submitted Ext.P8 stating that he could not attend the school because of Rheumatism and he can attend classes only from next June. Since said explanation was unsatisfactory, Ext.P9 memo of charges was issued to the appellant. Since Ext.P10 reply filed by the appellant was unsatisfactory, memo of charges was forwarded to the AEO (Assistant Education Officer) for enquriy under Rule 75 of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules. AEO, after conducting enquiry by Ext.P13 report found that the appellant is guilty of the misconduct levelled against him. In Ext.P12, the offer of the appellant that he is prepared to take leave without allowances for 5 years for taking up other employment was recorded. Thereafter the Manager issued notice to the appellant to show cause why the punishment of removal from service should not be imposed on him. W.A.NO.1232/08 . 3 By Ext.P16 order, the D.E.O granted permission to impose punishment. Accordingly by Ext.P17 order, the punishment of removal from service, was imposed on the appellant. The appellant challenged the same before the Deputy Director of Education. By Ext.P20, the D.D.E affirmed the finding of guilt but set aside the punishment of removal from service on the ground that it is disproportionate to the gravity of the misconducts. The Manager was directed to impose a more appropriate punishment after reinstating the appellant in service. The Manager challenged Ext.P20 order. The learned Single Judge considered the matter in detail. Earlier, the appellant had applied for leave for various reasons. Charge sheet was issued and punishment was approved by the A.E.O. In the above circumstances, the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that if the appellant is reinstated in service, future of the students will be affected. In fact he was a habitual absentee. Several show cause notices were issued earlier also. If a teacher is continuously absent, that will affect the future of the young generation. Therefore, the learned Single Judge found that direction of the D.D.E to reinstate the appellant in service after affirming the findings is illegal. We fully agree with the view of the learned Single Judge. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no ground to W.A.NO.1232/08 . 4 interfere with the impugned judgment. The writ appeal is dismissed. J.B. KOSHY, JUDGE. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. cl