IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 26TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 27618 of 2008(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.K.CICILY, (RETIRED HEADMISTRESS, GOVERNMENT L.P.G.S., NARAKKAL),'MAZHUVANCHERRY HOUSE, AYYAMPILLY P.O., PIN 682 501. BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 001. 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 014 3. DEPUTY DIRECTION (EDUCATION) ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, PIN 682 030. 4. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, VYPIN, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 682 505. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) 27618 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: SEPTEMBER 17, 2008 JUDGMENT The challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P1, P6, P8 and P12. 2. Petitioner was the Headmistress of Government L.P. School, Narakkal. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against her and in the meantime she retired from service. Finally Ext.P6 was issued imposing the punishment of barring an increment with immediate effect. It was also ordered to treat her suspension as eligible leave. Petitioner took up the matter before appellate authority and the punishment was reduced to censure. Ultimately the orders were challenged before this Court in OP 24039/01 and by Ext.P11 judgment, the OP was disposed of quashing Ext.P10 therein and directing the 1st respondent to reconsider the matter. According to the petitioner, the matter was reconsidered and Ext.P12 is the order that has WP(C) 27618/08 2 been passed. 3. In Ext.P12 the claim of the petitioner was rejected in the following terms:- “In fact the gravity of her offences deserve more stringent punishment. The conclusion of the disciplinary authority was that there was dereliction of duty on the part of the petitioner as it was proved beyond doubt. But a lenient view was taken by the disciplinary authority. She was suspended based on grave misconduct and the punishment meted out to her is too light compared to the serious charges proved. Hence Government feel that the suspension was justifiable and that the period of suspension cannot be treated as duty as requested by the petitioner. In the circumstances, the Revision Petition dated 3.10.2000 submitted by Smt. K.K.Cicily, Retired Headmistress, GLPS Narakkal is rejected. The direction contained in the judgment in OP No.24039/01 is complied as above.” 4. In this writ petition though several contentions are raised, what is now contended before me is the invalidity of the disciplinary proceedings and the order of punishment. I WP(C) 27618/08 3 am not impressed by any of these contentions. Evidently, a case of misconduct was alleged against the petitioner and it was proved and even in Ext.P11 judgment of this Court, this finding was not vacated. If that be so, the contentions now raised by the petitioner on the merits of the finding of this Court are only to be rejected. Punishment imposed is also not one shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct proved against the petitioner, warranting interference. 5. However, learned counsel for the petitioner now submits that even as per Ext.P6, which is now confirmed by Ext.P12, the suspension period is liable to be treated as eligible leave and that as she had leave to her credit, that leave is liable to be adjusted. This is not a matter which has been taken up by the petitioner so far or considered by any one of the authorities. In view of this it is directed that it will be open to the petitioner to move the competent authority with a request in this behalf in which case, the WP(C) 27618/08 4 same will be considered and appropriate orders will be passed. 6. It is also directed that in case the claim is allowed, monetary benefits, if any, will be granted to the petitioner within three months thereafter. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-