IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2010 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1932 WA.No. 691 of 2010 --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 3871/2010 IN WPC.5106/2010 DATED 5.4.2010 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- MANAGER, THACHINGANADAM HIGH SCHOOL, THACHINGANADAM.P.O. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.KRB.KAIMAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, WANDOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. TOMY JOSEPH, PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER (UNDER SUSPENSION) THACHINGANADAM HIGH SCHOOL, RESIDING AT POOVANTHINGAL HOUSE, PANTHALLOOR HILLS P.O., VIA. PANDIKKAD PIN-676 521, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. HEADMASTER, THACHINGANADAM HIGH SCHOOL, THACHINGANADAM.P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA R4 BY ADV.SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR R5 BY ADV.SRI.K.E.HAMZA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & C.N.Ramachandran Nair, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A. No.691 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of April, 2010 JUDGMENT C.N.Ramachandran Nair, J. This writ appeal is filed against the order of the learned Single Judge in I.A.No.3871 of 2010 in W.P.(C) No.5106 of 2010 by which he declined to interfere with the order of the District Educational Officer and the Government to reinstate the 4th respondent pending the enquiry ordered against him by the Government through the second respondent Deputy Director of Education. 2. We have heard Sri.K.R.BV.Kaimal, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri.P.K.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the 4th respondent and Sri.K.E.Hamza, learned counsel for the 5th respondent. 3. We find from the order of the learned Single Judge W.A. No.691 of 2010 . - 2 - that the only ground for reinstating the 4th respondent is that currently vacation is going on and therefore he could be reinstated pending enquiry. However, we find that the Government in revision found that a detailed enquiry is called for against the 4th respondent by a higher authority, that is the second respondent. Somuch so we find no justification for the learned Judge to reinstate him during the enquiry. Therefore, we dispose of the writ appeal by directing the second respondent to complete the enquiry within a period of two months from now. The disciplinary action and reinstatement of the 4th respondent will depend upon the result of the enquiry. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice C.N.Ramachandran Nair, Judge vns