Loading...
Responsive image

Indira Devi vs Kerala Women’S Commission Rep.By … on 5 July, 2010

Kerala High Court
Indira Devi vs Kerala Women’S Commission Rep.By … on 5 July, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 28354 of 2008(A)


1. INDIRA DEVI, ASWATHI HOUSE, IRINGAL.PO,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. KERALA WOMEN'S COMMISSION REP.BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE ASST.EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, VADAKARA.

3. K.K.RAMACHANDRAN, ASST.TEACHER

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.P.BALASUBRAMANYAN

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :05/07/2010

 O R D E R
                           S.SIRI JAGAN, J.

                    ==================

                     W.P.(C).No. 28354 of 2008

                    ==================

                 Dated this the 5th day of July, 2010

                           J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is a teacher in Thazhekkalari U.P. School at

Iringal, Vadakara. She filed a petition before the Kerala Women’s

Commission, viz., Ext.P3, against the 3rd respondent, which was

dismissed by the Women’s Commission, by Ext.P6 order, holding that

since in respect of the very same complaint, the High Court had

already confirmed the order of the AEO directing reinstatement of the

3rd respondent against whom Ext.P3 complaint was filed, the Women’s

commission cannot take action in the matter. The petitioner would

contend that the reason stated in Ext.P6 order is totally misconceived.

According to the petitioner, the management of the school proceeded

against the 3rd respondent in respect of several acts of misconducts

including some of the misconducts stated in Ext.P3 and the AEO found

the 3rd respondent guilty of all misconducts including this particular

misconduct stated in Ext.P3 and thereafter, directed the management

to reinstate the 3rd respondent by imposing a minor punishment.

Against that order, the management filed an appeal before the DEO,

who set aside the direction to reinstate the 3rd respondent with minor

punishment and permitted the manager to complete the disciplinary

w.p.c.28354/08 2

proceedings in accordance with law. That order of the DEO was

challenged by the 3rd respondent in W.P.(C).No.34020/2007, in which,

without setting aside the order of the DEO, a learned Judge of this

Court permitted the manager to file a revision petition before the

Government and the Government was directed to consider that

revision petition in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, Ext.P4 order

was passed confirming the order of the AEO. Ext.P4 order was

challenged by the manager before this Court, in which, by Ext.P5

interim order, this Court granted an interim stay of Ext.P4 order.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, contrary to the

finding in Ext.P6, the 3rd respondent was actually found guilty of all the

misconducts including misconduct stated in Ext.P3 by the AEO himself,

which has been confirmed by Ext.P4 order. Nobody has ever interfered

with the finding of guilt entered, by the AEO on the 3rd respondent. In

fact the subsequent litigation was only in respect of the direction to

reinstate the 3rd respondent by imposing a minor punishment. The

learned counsel for the petitioner points out that W.P.(C).

No.36112/2007 filed by the manager of the school against Ext.P4

order was allowed by this Court and after setting aside the direction to

reinstate the 3rd respondent, imposing a minor punishment, the

manager was permitted to complete the enquiry proceedings as

w.p.c.28354/08 3

contemplated under Rule 75 of Chapter XIV-A of the KER. The learned

counsel for the petitioner would, therefore, submit that since Ext.P6

order has been passed by the Women’s Commission on a mistaken

premise, Ext.P6 order is liable to be quashed and the Women’s

Commission is liable to be directed to reconsider Ext.P3 complaint in

accordance with law.

2. The counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent appears

today and submits that the 3rd respondent had no notice of the writ

petition at all. He also found fault with this Court for hearing the writ

petition without issuing notice to the 3rd respondent. But from the

records of the case, I find that as early as on 13.11.2008, this Court

passed the following order:

“Govt. Pleader takes notice for R1 and R2. Sri.Poovathil Abdul Kareem
takes notice for R3.”

In fact, thereafter, this case was posted on 17 dates along with two

other connected cases, one filed by the manager of the school and the

other filed by the 3rd respondent himself, in which the very same

advocate was appearing for the 3rd respondent. It is only after

pronouncing the judgment on the other two writ petitions, I posted this

case alone separately in the presence of the very same advocate. At

no point of time the counsel ever raised a contention that the 3rd

respondent did not receive notice in this writ petition. In view of the

w.p.c.28354/08 4

fact that the counsel had taken notice on behalf of the 3rd respondent

as early as on 13.11.2008, this case was posted along with the other

two cases. Admittedly, the very same counsel is appearing for the 3rd

respondent in all the cases. It is not fair on the part of the counsel for

the 3rd respondent to submit that he had no notice about this writ

petition. Instead of asking for time, he only tried to find fault with the

Court for hearing the case without issuing notice to the 3rd respondent

without even caring to ascertain the facts correctly. In the above

circumstances, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. I have no doubt in my mind that Ext.P6 has been passed

on a wrong premise. At no point of time this Court had ever upheld the

order of the AEO as found in Ext.P6 order. On the other hand, the

issue was always live. Moreover, even in the AEO’s order, which the

Commission found wrongly that this Court had upheld, the finding is

that the allegations against the 3rd respondent have been proved,

which include some of the allegations raised in Ext.P3. Even the 3rd

respondent has no case that the findings of the AEO have been set

aside at any time by anybody. Only when the management

challenged Ext.P4 order before this Court, he chose to challenge the

AEO’s order by filing another writ petition which has been dismissed

by this Court recording his submission that he can

w.p.c.28354/08 5

challenge the same when punishment is imposed on him. That being

so, there cannot be any doubt that Ext.P6 order has been passed on a

wrong premise. Consequently, Ext.P6 order is quashed. The Women’s

Commission is directed to reconsider Ext.P3 complaint in accordance

with law, as expeditiously as possible.

The writ petition is allowed as above.

Sd/-

sdk+                                          S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

          ///True copy///




                               P.A. to Judge

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information