IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 16568 of 2007(V)
1. A.J.JOSEPHINE, HSA (SANSKRIT),
... Petitioner
2. K.I.VASANTHI, HSA (MALAYALAM),
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
For Petitioner :SMT.S.KARTHIKA
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :31/05/2007
O R D E R
A.K. BASHEER, J.
--------------------------
W.P.(C). NO. 16568 OF 2007
---------------------
Dated this the 31st day of May, 2007
J U D G M E N T
Petitioners, who were appointed as Chief and Deputy Superintendent
respectively, for the conduct of SSLC examination during March 2007 have
landed up before this Court with Ext.P4 order of suspension in their hands.
2. Petitioners admit that they had committed a mistake, though
inadvertently, while taking out the bundle of question papers from the shelf
on the ill fated day. It so happened that they took out a bundle of question
papers the examination in respect of which, had already been cancelled. To
confound the mistake, the students were made to write the examination on
the basis of that invalid question paper.
3. I do not propose to go into the other details of the issue since, the
petitioners have admitted their folly. They have owned up the responsibility
for this terrible confusion. In fact, petitioners have given their respective
statements before the authority concerned admitting their mistakes. But,
unfortunately the Department has proceeded against them resulting in
Ext.P4 order.
4. It is brought to my notice that all relevant documents have been
WPC NO.16568/07 Page numbers
seized by the Departmental officers. Witnesses have also been questioned
already. What remains is only the finalisation of the proceedings. Though
learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed for issuance of a writ of
certiorari to quash Ext.P4 order of suspension, I am not persuaded to accede
to the said request. Even assuming that it was a genuine mistake on the part
of the petitioners, the Department should have the liberty to deal with its
officers in an appropriate manner, which should atleast act as a deterrent to
other employees. In that view of the matter, the prayer made by the
petitioners to quash Ext.P4 is declined. However, I make it clear that the
above view is taken by me without considering the merit of the contentions
raised by the petitioners at all.
5. Learned counsel points out that petitioner No.1 is due for
promotion with effect from June 1, 2007. Petitioner No.2 has got only ten
months’ service left to her credit. Both of them have had an unblemished
track record of nearly three decades. This aspect according to the learned
counsel, should atleast have weighed with the Department while issuing
Ext.P4 order.
6. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances, I am satisfied
that this is a fit case where the Department should finalise the departmental
proceedings against the petitioners with utmost expedition. As mentioned
WPC NO.16568/07 Page numbers
earlier, petitioners have admitted their guilt. The explanation given by them
in the writ petition appears to be plausible and reasonable. Yet again, I
hasten to add that this is a question to be decided in the departmental
proceedings.
7. Learned counsel has also invite my attention to Exts. P6 & P7
representations submitted by the petitioners before respondent No.2
requesting him to invoke the power under Rule 67(8) of Chapter XIV A
KER. She prays for an appropriate direction to respondent No.2 in this
regard. In my view, the peculiar circumstances noticed by me earlier is
sufficient reason to allow the above prayer.
Therefore the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to
respondent No.2 to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts. P6 & P7
as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of four weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It must also be ensured by the
respondents that the entire departmental proceedings against the petitioners
are concluded with utmost expedition, at any rate, within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE
vps
WPC NO.16568/07 Page numbers
A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE
OP NO.20954/00
WPC NO.16568/07 Page numbers
JUDGMENT
1ST MARCH, 2007