IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Con.Case(C).No. 1001 of 2007(S)
1. JAYARAMACHANDRA KURUP,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MRS.ELIAMMA, AGE AND FATHER'S
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.MANJERI SUNDERRAJ
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :31/10/2008
O R D E R
K.M.JOSEPH, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Cont. Case (C) No.1001 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 31st day of October, 2008
JUDGMENT
The writ petition was disposed of directing the second
respondent herein to complete the inquiry within a period of two months
from the date of the judgment. It was made clear that if the inquiry is not
completed within a period of two months, the petitioner will be reinstated
upon expiry of two months from the date of the judgment. The date of
judgment is 6.3.2007.
2. An affidavit is filed by the second respondent, wherein it is
stated that though three specific charges were framed, one charge was
partially proved. It is further stated that after completing the inquiry, the
inquiry report was forwarded to the first respondent Manager on 21.4.2007.
But it is stated that the second respondent received a letter dated 28.4.2007
from the first respondent Manager on 30.4.2007 informing that the Manager
is not satisfied with the inquiry conducted by the second respondent. In
reply to the said letter, the second respondent issued a letter to the Manager
on 2.5.2007 stating that inquiry was conducted after giving opportunity to
the Manager to substantiate his case and the inquiry has been completed
after complying all the formalities. The inquiry has been completed by
COC. 1001/2007. 2
5.5.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that charge has not
been proved and he is to be reinstated.
3. Being a contempt proceeding, under the law, the province of
this court is to consider whether the judgment has been complied with or
whether there is any willful disobedience of the judgment. Going by the
affidavit of the second respondent, he has completed the inquiry. No doubt,
apparently the first respondent has not accepted the report. It is also stated
by the learned Government Pleader that subsequently the first respondent
has also accepted the report and the matter is pending before the
Educational authority seeking approval for removal.
In the above circumstances, I need only close this contempt of
court case without prejudice to all the contentions of the petitioner against
the report and against any action purported to be taken on the basis of the
report. Accordingly, the contempt proceeding is dropped. This will be
without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to raise all the legal
contentions before the appropriate forum.
(K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE)
sb