IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 30307 of 2008(G)
1. E.B.VIJU
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION)
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :15/10/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
=W.P.(C) = = = = = = = = = = =
No. 30307 OF 2008 G
= = =
Dated this the 15th day of October 2008
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is a teacher in charge of the school of which the 2nd
respondent is the Manager. Based on a complaint made by the 3rd
respondent, the 1st respondent has issued a show cause notice to
the petitioner to which Ext. P2 reply was given. Thereafter, the 1st
respondent has issued Ext. P3 to the Manager directing him to take
disciplinary action against the petitioner under Chapter IX, Rule 11
and aggrieved by Ext. P3 this writ petition has been filed.
2. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that Ext. P3
has the effect of a binding direction requiring the Manager to
initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner. This contention of
the petitioner is sought to be contradicted by the learned Govt.
Pleader contending that Ext. P3 is only an intimation to the Manager
and at this stage, the Manager has to apply his mind and take a
decision in the matter.
W.P.(C) No.30307 OF 2008
-2-
3. From the submission of the learned Govt. Pleader it is
evident that though the apprehension which led the petitioner to file
this writ petition is that Ext. P3 will be a binding direction, but it is
only an intimation to the Manager. Recording the aforesaid
submission of the learned Govt. Pleader and clarifying that at this
stage it is primarily for the Manager to take a decision in this
matter, the writ petition is disposed of.
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
jan/-