IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 18372 of 2010(V)
1. A.A.PADMANABHAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
4. SMT.T.A.REENA
For Petitioner :SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :14/06/2010
O R D E R
C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No. 18372 of 2010 V
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 14th day of June, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is the Manager of A.M.L.P.School,
Kiralur in Thrissur district. As per Ext.P1, the petitioner suspended
the fourth respondent, the Headmistress of the said School, from
service. As per Ext.P2 order, permission was accorded to keep
the fourth respondent under suspension beyond 15 days.
Subsequently, Ext.P4 memo of charges was issued to the fourth
respondent. Ext.P8 is the report of the enquiry conducted against
the fourth respondent. After conducting an enquiry into the
charges levelled as per Ext.P4, the third respondent held the
charges against the fourth respondent as proved. According to
him, he has recommended action against the fourth respondent.
Subsequently, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P10 before the
second respondent for obtaining prior permission in terms of Rule
74 of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules for imposing
the penalty of removal from service of the fourth respondent.
However, as per Ext.P11 order, the second respondent declined to
grant the permission sought for and further directed the petitioner
WPC.18372/2010
: 2 :
to reinstate the fourth respondent in service. The contention of the
petitioner is that the said order was passed without considering
Ext.P8 and the contentions raised in Ext.P10. In the said
circumstances, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P12 revision
petition before the first respondent. He has also filed Ext.P13
petition for staying the operation and implementation of Ext.P11
order.
2. It is evident from the facts expatiated above that
disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the fourth
respondent as per Ext.P4 and the enquiry as contemplated under
Rule 75 of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules was
conducted. The third respondent, who conducted the enquiry,
submitted Ext.P8 report recommending for initiation of action. It is
based on the same, Ext.P10 was submitted before the second
respondent for obtaining prior permission in terms of Rule 74 of
Chapter XIV-A for imposing the penalty of removal from service of
the fourth respondent. According to the petitioner, Ext.P11 would
reveal that the second respondent did not consider Ext.P8 report
as also the contentions raised in Ext.P10 before declining
WPC.18372/2010
: 3 :
permission. These are matters for consideration of the first
respondent and the petitioner has raised all those averments in
Ext.P12 revision petition. It is the case of the petitioner that in
case Ext.P11 order is implemented pending decision on Ext.P12, it
would adversely affect the interest of the institution and it is in the
said circumstances that Ext.P13 stay petition was moved before
the first respondent.
In the aforesaid circumstances, this writ petition is disposed
of with a direction to the first respondent to consider Ext.P12
revision petition and pass orders thereon with notice to the
petitioner and the fourth respondent, expeditiously, at any rate,
within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment. However, the first respondent shall take up Ext.P13
stay petition within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt
of a copy of this judgment and pass orders thereon within a period
of one week thereafter.
Sd/-
(C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)
aks
// True Copy //
P.A. To Judge