P.Ibrahimkutty vs Deputy Director Of Education on 27 November, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 35026 of 2008(T)


1. P.IBRAHIMKUTTY, S/O.SAINUDHEEN(LATE)
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
                       ...       Respondent

2. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR

3. SUB TREASURY OFFICER, CHAMGARAMKULAM,

4. HEADMASTER, GOVERNMENT HIGHER

5. T.C.MATHAI, PRINCIPAL, M.V.M.

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :27/11/2008

 O R D E R
                      ANTONY DOMINIC, J

     -----------------------------------------------------------
                     W.P.(C).No.35026/2008
     -----------------------------------------------------------
          Dated this the 28th day of November, 2008


                            JUDGMENT

The allegation in this writ petition is against the 5th

respondent that he had misappropriated PTA funds of the

school, of which the 4th respondent is the Headmaster.

Petitioner submits that an enquiry was conducted by the

2nd respondent into the said allegation and that he had

submitted a report to the 4th respondent affirming the

correctness of the allegation. According to the petitioner,

while the matter was pending as above, the 5th respondent

has retired from service also. It is stated that in order to

realize the allegedly misappropriated amount, the second

respondent has ordered the Headmaster to issue liability

certificate and to initiate recovery proceedings. The

complaint in this writ petition is that thereafter there has

WP(c).No.35026/08 2

not been any further action taken in the matter as directed

by the DEO.

Although, at this stage this court is not required to

pronounce on the correctness or otherwise of the allegations

raised by the petitioner as above, it is only appropriate that

if DEO has issued an order as asserted by the petitioner,

necessary action shall be taken by the 4th respondent.

Therefore, it will be open to the petitioner to produce a copy

of the judgment before the 4th respondent and on

production thereof, the 4th respondent shall do the needful

in accordance with law.

Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE

vi.

WP(c).No.35026/08 3