Kerala High Court
P.Raveendran vs K.Balamaniamma on 29 May, 2012
Bench: C.N.Ramachandran Nair, C.K.Abdul Rehim
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/16TH BHADRA 1934
WA.No. 1111 of 2012 () IN WPC/34518/2011
-----------------------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WPC.34518/2011 DATED 29-05-2012
APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT NO.5:
---------------------------------------
P.RAVEENDRAN
"KRISHNA KRIPA", SISUMANDIRAM ROAD
KIZHINJANYAM.P.O., KOZHIKODE-673525.
BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4:
--------------------------
1. K.BALAMANIAMMA
MANAGER, VELLIYUR AIDED UPPER PRIMARY (AUP) SCHOOL
P.O. NOCHAD, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673624.
2. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURM-695001.
3. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
KOZHIKODE-673001.
5. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
PERAMBRA-673525, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN
BY ADV. SHRI.LIJU STEPHEN, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
BY ADV. SRI.P.RAVINDRAN (SR.)
BY ADV.SHRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-09-2012, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.NO.1111/2012
APPENDIX
APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS
ANNEXURE-I : COPY OF DRAFT COUNTER AFFIDAVIT (WITHOUT EXHIBITS)
FILED BY THE APPELLANT.
ANNEXURE-II : COPY OF REPORT DATED 24/03/2010 PREPARED BY R3.
ANNEXURE-III : COPY OF MEMO DATED 05/10/2009.
ANNEXURE-IV : COPY OF MEMO DATED 04/11/2009.
ANNEXURE-V : COPY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSION PLACED BY THE APPELLANT
BFORE THE JOINT REGISTRAR.
ANNEXURE-VI : COPY OF LIST OF STUDENTS WHO DID NOT ATTEND THE
CLASSES.
ANNEXURE-VII : COPY OF MEMO DATED 23/03/2010 ISSUED BY THE AEO.
ANNEXURE-VIII : COPY OF LETTER DATED 29/03/2010.
ANNEXURE-IX : COPY OF REPLY DATED 09/11/2010.
ANNEXURE-X : COPIES OF REPLIES DATED 23/12/2010, 14/01/2011 &
17/12/2010.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS
ANNEXURE-R1(a) : COPIES OF APPLICATION FORMS FOR ADMISSION OF 11
STUDENTS OUT OF 17 BY THE HEADMASTER, THE APPELLANT.
ANNEXURE-R1(b) : COPIES OF THE ORDERS OF THE AEO ISSUED UNDER RULE 5,
CHAPTER VI KER IN RESPECT OF 7 STUDENTS.
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE.
jg
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ.
....................................................................
W.A.No.1111 of 2012
....................................................................
Dated this the 7th day of September, 2012.
J U D G M E N T
Ramachandran Nair, J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and also learned Senior counsel Shri.P.Ravindran appearing for the respondent Management.
2. The appellant's suspension beyond 15 days was not approved by the educational authorities against which the Management filed revision before the Government, which was dismissed by the Government. It was against this order, namely Ext.P8, WP(C) was filed by the Management before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge directed completion of enquiry against which this Writ Appeal is filed. However, during pendency of the Writ Appeal, we ordered reinstatement of the appellant, which is done by the Management. It is submitted that though the Management filed SLP before the Supreme Court against the Division Bench judgment, the same was dismissed.
W.A.No.1111/2012 -2-
3. As of now, the appellant stands reinstated as Headmaster. The Management has still a case that enquiry based on complaints from Teachers have to be proceeded against the Headmaster, namely, the appellant. However, the appellant has a case that complaints are creation from Teachers and from Management on account of disciplinary action taken by the appellant against Teachers who marked attendance of bogus students. We do not think there is any need for us to consider the bonafides of the disciplinary action initiated against the appellant and the counter allegations by the appellant against the Management because already we got a Vigilance enquiry done in which bogus admissions were also subject matter and a copy of the Vigilance report is filed in this Court. Since Vigilance enquiry is conducted by higher level functionary, we feel disciplinary proceedings against the appellant also should be considered by a still higher authority, who is the Director of Public Instructions.
We, accordingly, dispose of the Writ Appeal directing the DPI to consider the Vigilance report and also conduct enquiry W.A.No.1111/2012 -3- both about the appellant and the Management and also about the Teachers concerned and take appropriate action against those involved in irregularities or acts of indiscipline. We make it clear that no adverse action or order should be issued against any one concerned except after notice is issued and such person given an opportunity to file his or her objection.
This Writ Appeal is disposed of as above.
(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE) jg