IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 9523 of 2010(M)
1. REMILA GRACE VIJAYAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY
3. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
4. THE CORPORATE MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SRI.KKM.SHERIF
For Respondent :SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :16/08/2010
O R D E R
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
——————————————–
W.P.(C). NOs. 9523 & 18260 OF 2010
——————————————–
Dated this the 16th day of August, 2010
Common facts and issues involve in these Writ Petitions and
therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. In W.P.(C).No.9523/2010, the challenge is against Ext.P1
order whereby the petitioner was placed under suspension while working
as Principal of Malabar Christian College Higher Secondary School,
Kozhikode and continuance of all proceedings pursuant thereto. The
further prayer is for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the
respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service. In the latter Writ
Petition, the challenge is against Ext.P8 order to the extent it orders
transfer of the petitioner from M.C.C Higher Secondary School,
Kozhikode to BEM Girls H.S.S and also to quash Ext.P9 order whereby
the seniormost H.S.S.T of the said school Smt.Reena K.P was directed to
take charge of the Principal on provisional basis for the purpose of
drawing and disbursing salary of the staff and for performing the duties of
the Principal of the school. The further prayer is to issue a writ of
mandamus commanding the fourth respondent to appoint the petitioner as
W.P.(C) NO.9523 &
18260/2010 2
Principal of M.C.C Higher Secondary School, Kozhikode. In view of the
order I propose to pass in this Writ Petition I do not think it necessary to
delve into the facts any further. As per inetrim order dated 30.3.2010 in
W.P.(C).No.9523/2010, this Court on finding that the disciplinary
proceedings initiated against the petitioner was not completed, ordered to
reinstate the petitioner in service without prejudice to the completion of
the disciplinary proceedings. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner was
reinstated in service but in another school ie., BEM Higher Secondary
School, Kozhikode. On such transfer, the petitioner was not permitted to
function as the Principal of the said school whilst another teacher was put
in charge, purely on provisional basis as per Ext.P9 in W.P.(C).
NO.18260/2010. The order of transfer of the petitioner was not actually
ratified by the Regional Deputy Director, Kozhikode and in fact, fourth
respondent-Manager was directed to place the seniormost H.S.S.T,
Smt.Reena K.P, in-charge of Principal purely on provisional basis for the
purpose of drawing and disbursal of the salary of the Higher secondary
section of that school and also to perform the routine duties of Principal.
As noticed hereinbefore, this Court ordered to reinstate the petitioner
taking into account the delay in the matter of finalisation of the
disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner. In troth, the
W.P.(C) NO.9523 &
18260/2010 3
Manager cannot be saddled with the liability or responsibility for such
delay and in fact, it is on account of the inaction on the part of the
Regional Deputy Director that the Manager was disabled from concluding
the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner. Order dated
30.3.2010 in W.P.(C).NO.9523/2010 was modified as per order dated
17.6.2010. Later, a memo was filed by the learned Government Pleader in
W.P.(C).NO.18260/2010 as directed by this Court. Along with the said
memo, a copy of the enquiry report of the Regional Deputy Director,
Kozhikode has been produced. It is thus obvious that the Regional Deputy
Director has now, completed the disciplinary proceedings and submitted
his report to the fourth respondent. The disciplinary proceedings initiated
against the petitioner can be construed only as a proceedings initiated
against her under Rule 75 of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules
in the light of G.O.(MS).No.235(1)2009/G.Edn. Dated 5.12.2009. In the
circumstances, without making any further observation with respect to the
merits of the rival contentions, these Writ Petitions are disposed of with a
direction to the Corporate Manager of the CSI Diocesan schools (in
Malabar and Vayanad area), Kozhikode to finalise the disciplinary
proceedings initiated against the petitioner after furnishing a copy of the
enquiry report submitted by the Regional Deputy Director to her and
W.P.(C) NO.9523 &
18260/2010 4
obtaining her explanation thereon in accordance with law, within a period
of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The
petitioner has yet another grievance. According to her, pursuant to the
order of this court dated 30.3.2010, though she was reinstated in service,
she has not been disbursed with the salary. In the said context, it is to be
taken note of the fact that this Court subsequently modified the said order
on 17.6.2010. Taking into account the peculiar facts obtaining in this case,
it is ordered that till disciplinary proceedings is completed, as directed
above, interim order dated 17.6.2010 will remain in force. However, it
will be open to the petitioner to submit a representation before the
Regional Deputy director, Kozhikode for the purpose of issuing
appropriate directions for the disbursement of salary. The petitioner shall
co-operate with the fourth respondent-Manager to conclude the
disciplinary proceedings within the time stipulated above.
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)
spc
W.P.(C) NO.9523 &
18260/2010 5
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
W.P.(C). NO. /2010
JUDGMENT
June, 2010
W.P.(C) NO.9523 &
18260/2010 6