IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 29187 of 2010(W)
1. SYAM MOHAN, AGED 17 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE PRINCIPAL, SREE NARAYAN CENTRAL
... Respondent
2. T.K. KANAKALATHA, VICE PRINCIPAL,
3. THE CHAIRMAN, MANGEMENT COMMITTEE,
4. THE PRESIDENT, SREE NARYAN SAMSKARIKA
For Petitioner :SRI.G.BENO
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :22/09/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO.29187 OF 2010(W)
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2010
J U D G M E N T
A student facing disciplinary action initiated by the Principal
of the School is the petitioner in this writ petition. Challenge in
this writ petition is against the whole disciplinary proceedings.
2. Pleadings in the writ petition show that based on the
report received from the police, petitioner was placed under
suspension and Ext.P2 memo of charges was issued to him. On
receipt of Ext.P2 memo of charges petitioner submitted his
explanation and an Enquiry Committee was appointed. Enquiry
was conducted, report was submitted to the disciplinary authority
and based on which show cause notice was issued and
explanation was also filed. The disciplinary authority has not
taken any final decision in the matter. It is at this stage that the
writ petition is filed.
3. In my view, the writ petition is premature for the reason
that the disciplinary authority has not taken any final decision
adverse to the petitioner and only after concluding the case and
only if the decision of the disciplinary authority is against the
WPC.No. 29187/2010
:2 :
petitioner, he can invoke the remedy available under Article 226
of the Constitution of India.
Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed as premature.
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/