IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2009 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 6669 of 2009(C) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- DR.MATHEW P.ABRAHAM, HEADMASTER, (UNDER SUSPENSION), ST.THOMAS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, ERUVELLIPRA, THIRUMOOLAPURAM P.O., THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. MR.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE CORPORATE MANAGER, CATHOLIC EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, MARY GIRI, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PATHANAMTHITTA AT THIRUVALLA. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. MR.S.SUBHASH CHAND FOR R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.Ravindran, J. ================== W.P.(C) No.6669 of 2009 ===================== Dated this the 25th day of March, 2009. JUDGMENT Heard Sri. S.Muhammed Haneef, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. S.Subash Chand, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Sri. A.J.Varghese, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2 and 3. 2. The petitioner is the Headmaster of an aided higher secondary school established and administered by the Catholic Educational Agency, Thiruvalla. The first respondent Corporate Manager placed the petitioner under suspension by Ext.P1 order passed on 29.1.2009. Simultaneously, Ext.P2 memo of charges was also issued and served on the petitioner. The petitioner submitted Ext.P4 representation. The first respondent reported the matter to the Deputy Director of Education, who conducted a preliminary enquiry as required by Rule 67(8) of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules, hereinafter referred to as the “KER” for short, and passed Ext.P5 order dated 10.2.2009 ratifying the petitioner's suspension and permitted continuance of the suspension beyond 15 days. Aggrieved by Ext.P5, the petitioner has filed Ext.P6 revision WP(C) 6669/09 -: 2 :- petition before the Government. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges Ext.P5 and inter alia seeks a direction to the Government to consider Ext.P6 revision petition and pass orders thereon within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. 3. Rule 79 of Chapter XIV A of the KER stipulates that a teacher may appeal against an order of suspension to the authority to which, the authority which made or is deemed to have made the order is immediately subordinate. It is also provided that where previous sanction for continuance of suspension has been accorded, then the appeal shall lie to the next higher authority to whom the authority who accorded sanction is subordinate. In the instant case, the Deputy Director of Education accorded sanction to continue the suspension beyond 15 days. Therefore, on the terms of Rule 79 of Chapter XIV A of the KER, an appeal from Ext.P1 order of suspension will lie to the Director of Public Instruction. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the petitioner ought to have invoked that remedy available to him instead of moving the Government in revision. Rule 82 of Chapter XIV A of the KER provides that an appeal shall not be entertained unless it is submitted within a period of two months from the date on which the appellant received a copy of the order appealed against. The proviso to Rule 82 empowers the appellate authority to condone the delay in filing the appeal, if such delay is satisfactorily explained. Ext.P1 order of suspension was passed on 29.1.2009. The period of limitation prescribed WP(C) 6669/09 -: 3 :- in Rule 82 has expired. The petitioner had within three weeks from the date on which Ext.P1 suspension order was passed and within one week after it was ratified, moved the Government in revision. The said revision petition is still pending. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the Government is directed to transmit the original of Ext.P6 to the Director of Public Instruction and the Director of Public Instruction is directed to entertain it as an appeal filed within the time and pass orders thereon. I accordingly dispose of this Writ Petition with the following directions: (i) The Secretary to Government, General Education Department shall within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment from the petitioner, forward the original of Ext.P6 to the Director of Public Instruction. (ii) The Director of Public Instruction shall within one month from the date on which the original of Ext.P6 is thus received from the Government issue notice to the petitioner and the first respondent, afford them a reasonable opportunity of being heard and pass final orders in the matter. (iii) The Director of Public Instruction shall after orders are passed as above, communicate copies of the same to the petitioner and the first respondent simultaneously. I make it clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the WP(C) 6669/09 -: 4 :- petitioner's contentions and that it will be open to the Director of Public Instruction to arrive at his own conclusions based on the materials on record. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 26/3