IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 6669 of 2009(C)
1. DR.MATHEW P.ABRAHAM, HEADMASTER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE CORPORATE MANAGER, CATHOLIC
... Respondent
2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
For Petitioner :SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF
For Respondent :SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :25/03/2009
O R D E R
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