IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 26565 of 2006(K)
1. V.JAYACHANDRAN, S/O. LATE M.VELAYUDHAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL
... Respondent
2. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
3. A.SAKUNTHALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.AJAKUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.B.RAGUNATHAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :22/02/2008
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.26565 OF 2006
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2008
JUDGMENT
The Manager of an aided School is the petitioner herein. The
matter relates to disciplinary proceedings against a Full Time
Menial of the School, the 3rd respondent herein. Originally, she
was suspended pending disciplinary action and ultimately
reinstated on 12.3.2001, pursuant to Ext.P4 order of the Director
of Public Instructions, in which the DEO was also directed to
complete the enquiry under Rule 75 of Chapter XIVA of KER. The
DEO thereafter filed Ext.P5 enquiry report, in which she held as
follows:
“It is evident that though there is no clear
proof and supporting evidence to substantiate the
charges, that do not mean that the denial of the
charges by the F.T.M. Does not seem true to facts
the full core and therefore she deserves some
minor punishment/warning as the Manager deemed
it necessary.”
Thereafter, the petitioner forwarded for approval Ext.P7 order
proposing to impose on the 3rd respondent, the punishment of
barring of increment for a period of three years. The same was
W.P.(c) No.26565/06 2
rejected by the Educational Officer by Ext.P9 order. The
petitioner filed a revision before the Government. There was a
dispute as to whether a revision lies to the Government,
ultimately by Ext.P19 judgment, this Court directed the
Government to consider the revision petition and pass
appropriate orders. Pursuant thereto Ext.P21 order has been
passed by the Government by which the Government reduced
the punishment to barring of one increment and rejected other
contentions of the petitioner. The petitioner is challenging
Ext.P21 order inter alia on the ground that the person, who
heard the revision petition did not pass the impugned order.
Arguments have been advanced before me as to whether such
a procedure is valid, but a consensus has been arrived at
among the parties to this writ petition to the effect that the
Government can be directed to reconsider the matter.
Accordingly Ext.P21 order is quashed and the 1st
respondent – Government is directed to reconsider the revision
petition filed by the petitioner and pass fresh orders in
accordance with law. While doing so, in order to avoid further
controversies, the Government shall see that the officer who
W.P.(c) No.26565/06 3
hears the revision petition himself/herself passes the final
order also. Orders shall be passed within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
Acd
W.P.(c) No.26565/06 4