Kerala High Court
S.R.Sreejith Kumar vs The Deputy Director Of Education on 19 November, 2012
Author: C.T. Ravikumar
Bench: C.T.Ravikumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2014/11TH ASHADHA, 1936
WP(C).No. 16127 of 2014 (M)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
----------------
S.R.SREEJITH KUMAR
U.P.S.A (UNDER SUSPENSION)
AMRITHA VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KONNI
PATHANAMTHITTA.
BY ADV. SRI.S.NIDHEESH
RESPONDENT(S):
-------------------
1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
PATHANAMTHITTA AT THIRUVALLA- 689 101.
2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
PATHANAMTHITTA- 689 645.
3. THE MANAGER
MATHA AMRITHANANDA MAYI CHARITABLE TRUST
CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY OF SCHOOLS, AMRITHAPURI
KOLLAM DISTRICT -690 525
R1, BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SOJAN JAMES
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-07-2014,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 16127 of 2014 (M)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:
------------------------------
EXT.P-1: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DATED 19.11.2012 ISSUED
BY THE CORPORATE MANAGER, AMRITA VOCATIONAL HIGHER
SECONDARY SCHOOL, KONNI.
EXT.P-2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 1.12.2012 SUBMITTED BY
PETITIONER TO THE MANAGER, A.V.H.S.S. KONNI.
EXT.P-3: TRUE COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER DATED 1.10.2012 ISSUED
BY MANAGER A.V.H.S.S.
EXT.P-4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF EXTENSION DATED 16.10.2012
ISSUED BY MANAGER, A.V.H.S.S.
EXT.P-5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.11.2012 OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
EXT.P-6:TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 27.4.2013.
EXT.P-7:TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 1.6.2013.
EXT.P-8:TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 27.11.2013.
EXT.P-9:TRUE COPY OF THE FORWARDING LETTER DATED 15.2.2014 OF 2ND
RESPONDENT TO THE IST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P-10:TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P-11:TRUE COPY OF THE RUNNING NOTE FILE OBTAINED BY THE
PETITIONER UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.
EXT.P-12:TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
EXT.P-13:TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE
SHOW CAUSE NOTICE OF 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.P-14:TRUE COPY OF ADDITIONAL REPLY DATED 19.5.2014 SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE.
EXT.P-15:TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 19.5.2014 SUBMITTED BY
PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:NIL
-----------------------------------
//TRUE COPY//
P.A.TO JUDGE
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
==========================
W.P.(C). No.16127 OF 2014
==========================
Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2014
JUDGMENT
The petitioner was working as Upper Primary School Assistant under the third respondent's school. Alleging commission of misconducts, Ext.P1 memo of charges was issued to the petitioner. The second respondent conducted an enquiry in tune with the provisions under Rule 75 of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules and submitted Ext.P10 report to enable the third respondent, the disciplinary authority, to take appropriate steps in accordance with law for finalising the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner. On receipt of Ext.P10 report, the third respondent issued Ext.P12 notice to the petitioner calling for his explanation to satisfy the statutory mandate. Admittedly, copy of Ext.P10 report was also served along with the same. The notice also carries a proposal to W.P.(C).16127/2014 2 impose the penalty of removal from service on the petitioner. It is challenging Ext.P12 notice that the captioned writ petition has been filed.
2. The petitioner has raised various contentions to assail Ext.P12. Evidently, after conducting an enquiry, Ext.P10 report was submitted by the second respondent and going by the provisions under Rule 75 (11)(a) of Chapter XIV-A of the KER, the manager, the disciplinary authority is bound to furnish copy of the said report to the teacher concerned. As per Rule 75(11)(b), the manager is bound to issue a notice stating the action proposed to be taken in regard to the delinquent teacher and to call upon him to submit representation, if any, against the proposed action based on the evidence adduced during the enquiry. Thus it is obvious that Ext.P12 is the notice issued strictly in terms of Rule 75(11)(b) of Chapter XIV-A, KER. Merely because a punishment is proposed therein, the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that any of his fundamental rights has been infringed by issuance of Ext.P12. In fact, after the receipt of Ext.P12, the W.P.(C).16127/2014 3 petitioner has submitted Exts.P13 and P14 explanations and therefore, what now remains to be done is finalisation of the proceedings after considering Exts.P13 and P14 in terms of Rule 75 (11)(c) of Chapter XIV-A, KER. The petitioner cannot maintain this writ petition carrying a challenge against Ext.P12 in such circumstances. Having found that Ext.P12 notice is issued only to comply with the mandatory requirements and no fundamental right of the petitioner is infringed I am of the view that this writ petition is moved prematurely and therefore, this Court has to decline the jurisdiction, at this stage. Accordingly, it is dismissed. However, it is made clear that dismissal of this writ petition will not prejudice to the right of the petitioner to raise all legal and factual contentions before the appropriate authority, at the appropriate stage. In other words, all contentions are left open to be raised before the appropriate authority in appropriate proceedings.
Sd/-
C.T. RAVIKUMAR
(JUDGE)
spc/
W.P.(C).16127/2014 4
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
W.P.(C).16127/2014 5
JUDGMENT
September,2010