IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2008 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WA.No. 2393 of 2008() ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.33610/2008 Dated 17/11/2008 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ RANI P.JOHN, D/O.P.V.JOHN, AGED 48 YEARS, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (SOCIAL STUDIES), (UNDER SUSPENSION) ST.ANTONY'S HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KACHERIPADY, ERNAKULAM (RESIDING AT BLOCK 5, D3-GALAXY EDIFICE, VAZHAKKALA, KOCHI-21. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. THE CORPORATE MANAGEMENT OF THE TERESIAN CARMELITE SISTERS OF ERNAKULAM, ST.TERESAS' CONVENT ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVACIS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY (Ag.CJ) & V.K.MOHANAN, J. ================================ W.A.No.2393 of 2008 =============================== Dated this the 17th day of December, 2008. J U D G M E N T KOSHY, Ag.CJ. The appellant was a High School Assistant (Social Science and English) working in the 3rd respondent's school from 3.6.1985 onwards. She was placed under suspension pending enquiry on 2.8.2001. Enquiry was conducted with regard to the charges by the District Educational Officer. She was found guilty. A show cause notice was issued proposing punishment. 2. Operative portion of Ext.P7 reads as follows: “Whereas, the D.E.O, Ernakulam, the Enquiry Officer in this case, has forwarded the Report of Enquiry upon completing of the process of Enquiry in terms of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.No.493/2008 dated 07/03/2008 and in accordance with Rule 75, Chapter XIV A KER, And whereas, in the Report of Enquiry the DEO found that 7 charges out of the 10 charges framed against you and the allegations are conclusively proved and clearly sustainable; And further; as pointed out in the statement of allegations attached to the Memo of Charges that the Final Decree in O.P.No.1167/1996-L and CMP.No.26503/1996 dated 25-09-1996 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala dissolving your marriage on the ground of adultery on your part would also be W.A.No.2393 of 2008 2 taken into account in the matter of disciplinary proceedings against you; and especially in view of the grievances of co-workers, parents and students; And also; after having considered the finding in the Enquiry Report especially with regard to the manhandling of the Head of the Institution in front of the students in a class room, and other documents and records connected with the Enquiry including the above mentioned aspects coming under the purview of moral turpitude, And having considered the facts and circumstances of the matter especially with reference to the staff, discipline and the interest of the students, the under signed proposes to impose upon you the major penalty of dismissal from service as provided Under Sub Rule (VII) to Rule 65, Chapter XIV A KER, Therefore, you are here by called upon to submit within 15 days from the date of receipt of this Notice, any representation as you may wish to make against the proposed punishment of dismissal from the service of the school. The undersigned, further intimate you that in the event of non-receipt of any representation against this Notice, or request for personal hearing within the time limit, the proposed penalty of dismissal will be imposed upon you without any further Notice. The copy of the Report of enquiry is furnished as per rules.” 3. It is the contention of the appellant that enquiry was not conducted in accordance with law and there is violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, show cause notice W.A.No.2393 of 2008 3 proposing punishment should be quashed and she filed a revision petition. We are of the view that matter is only at the show cause stage. At every state of the disciplinary proceedings, this Court cannot interfere. It is for the appellant/petitioner to question the final order passed by the Manager by filing appropriate proceedings. Petitioner submitted a detailed explanation (Ext.P8). After considering that explanation it is for the Manager to apply his mind and pass final orders. Manager may either accept or reject his explanation. Petitioner filed a detailed explanation (Ext.P8). Thereafter, she filed a revision application before the Government under Rule 92. She approached this Court to issue a writ of mandamus to dispose of the revision application. Learned Judge in the impugned judgment rightly found that at the stage of show cause notice, before orders are passed, the petitioner cannot avail statutory remedy under Rule 92, Chapter XIV A, KER. We fully agree with the same. Appellant cited the decision of the Division Bench decision of this Court in Cherian vs. Anna S.Varghese (1987 (1) KLT 301). In that case, the enquiry officer, District W.A.No.2393 of 2008 4 Educational Officer, found the person not guilty. In such circumstances, Division Bench held that Manager cannot issue a show cause notice proposing punishment. His only remedy available is to approach the Government by filing statutory remedies as enquiry officer exonerated the employee and there is no other remedy available to the manager. The ratio in that judgment is not applicable in this case. Final orders are not passed. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. J.B.KOSHY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE bkn/-