IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 21ST NOVEMBER 2008 / 30TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 33491 of 2008(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ NARAYANA PILLAI.C.R., 55 YEARAS, HEADMASTER, S/O.RAGHAVAN PILLAI (LATE) ILLIMOTTIL HOUSE, VETTATHOOR PO, MELATTURR VIA, MALAPPURAM AMUP.SCHOOL, VETTATHOOR PO MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MENON SRI.A.SATHYANANDAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. MANAGER, AMUP SCHOOL VETTATHOOR PO., MALAPPURAM. 2. ASST.EDUCATIONAL OFFICER AEO OFFICE, MALAPPURAM. 3. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, TRIVANDRUM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 33491 OF 2008 (K) ==================== Dated this the 21th day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the Headmaster of an Aided school. Following Ext.P1 complaint received by the AEO which was forwarded to the Manager by Ext.P2 order dated 15/10/2007, petitioner was placed under suspension. Thereafter Ext.P3 memo of charges was issued and documents were also supplied. At that stage, petitioner claims to have made a request to the 3rd respondent to reinstate him and to change the enquiry officer. It is stating that continuance of his suspension beyond 15 days was without the orders of the AEO as contemplated in Rule 67(8) of Chapter XIV A KER and that his request for change of Enquiry Officer has not been considered, this writ petition has been filed. There is also a prayer to quash Exts.P2 and P3 and to direct reinstatement with benefits. 2. In so far his complaint that the continuance of his suspension beyond 15 days is without complying with the provisions of Rule 67(8) is concerned, learned Government Pleader on instruction submits that the AEO passed order dated 26/10/2007 permitting continuance of the suspension. It is also stated that on expiry of 6 months period, DEO has passed a review order on 12/6/08. If that be so, the first objection raised WPC 33491/08 :2 : by the petitioner against the continuance of his suspension is only to be rejected. 3. In so far as the progress regarding the enquiry and the request that was made for the change of enquiry officer are concerned, learned Government Pleader submits that a detailed enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer, report was submitted and the Manager has proposed punishment of removal of the petitioner and that the proposal in this behalf was forwarded to the DEO, who has made it over to the AEO. It is stated that the AEO is to pass orders thereon. Thus, obviously enquiry is completed and if that be so, there is no question of considering the request of the petitioner to change the enquiry officer at this distance of time. Therefore, leaving open the contentions raised by the petitioner on the merits of the proceedings initiated against him, this writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp