IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 21238 of 2010(D)
1. SANTHAKUMARI.K.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE PROJECT DIRECTOR,
... Respondent
2. THE STATE PROGRAMME OFFICER,
3. THE PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT PROJECT
4. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
5. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.GIREESH VARMA
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :28/07/2010
O R D E R
C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.
----------------------------
W.P.(C)No.21238 of 2010
----------------------------
Dated 28th July, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a High School Assistant. She had been
deputed to the Sarva Siksha Abhiyan. The main grievance of the
petitioner is that after terminating her deputation, she has been
repatriated to the parent department. The said action was preceded
by an enquiry. According to the petitioner, no proper opportunity was
given to the petitioner to adduce evidence at the said enquiry. The
petitioner has also an apprehension that if any auditing is conducted
without her presence and without affording her a reasonable
opportunity, it may ultimately cause hardship to the petitioner. With
respect to the said aspect, in the light of the letter issued by the first
respondent to the petitioner on 15.7.2010 the grievance of the
petitioner has been substantially redressed. As per the said letter, the
first respondent has requested the petitioner to intimate him
regarding the convenience of the petitioner so as to fix a date for
auditing. In short, it is evident from the said letter dated 15.7.2010
that the petitioner would be allowed to be present at the time of
auditing.
2. With respect to the grievance of the petitioner regarding
the enquiry that preceded the order by which she was repatriated to
WP(C).No.21238/2010 2
the parent department, prima facie nothing is before this Court to
arrive at a conclusion that the said enquiry was conducted for the
purpose of imposing any punishment on the petitioner. In other
words, there is nothing to show that, that was a disciplinary
proceeding. If the said enquiry would entail any order that is
prejudicial to the petitioner, in such event, before passing any such
order, the petitioner shall be put a notice. Only after affording a proper
opportunity to the petitioner any order which may likely to affect the
petitioner based on such enquiry shall be passed. At any rate, it shall
not workout stigmatic against the petitioner at present.
With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed
of.
C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Judge
TKS