Kerala High Court
Fr. P.G. Thomson vs The State Of Kerala on 30 March, 1993
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
MONDAY,THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014/7TH MAGHA, 1935
WP(C).No. 13047 of 2011 (E)
----------------------------------------
PETITIONER:
-------------------
FR. P.G. THOMSON,
AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.P.G. GEORGE (LATE),
CORPORATE MANAGER, C.M.S HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
ROUND WEST, THRISSUR.
BY ADVS.SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
SRI.K.E.HAMZA
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
JAGATHY, TRIVANDRUM - 695 014.
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR - 680 003.
4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 001.
5. SRI. DAVID JOHN, HEADMASTER
(UNDER ORDERS OF COMPULSORY RETIREMENT), C.M.S
HIGH SCHOOL, THRISSUR (RESIDING AT JATHIKKATHOPPIL
HOUSE, ALUKKAL GARDEN, POOVANI,
KOLAZHI, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 010.
6. SRI.M.N. RAMACHANDRAN,
HEADMASTER, C.M.S HIGH SCHOOL, THRISSUR - 680 001.
R1 TO R4 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.R.RANJITH
R5 BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
R6 BY ADV. SRI.C.A.ANOOP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-01-2014,
ALONG WITH WPC. 23647/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Msd.
WP(C).No. 13047 of 2011 (E)
----------------------------------------
APPENDIX
---------------
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:
--------------------------------------
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C/22/93 OF THE MANAGER
DATED 30.03.1993.
EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT
DATED 12.11.1992.
EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE MANAGER DATED 11.05.2005.
EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES ALONG WITH STATEMENT
OF ALLEGATIONS OF THE MANAGER DATED 05.09.2007.
EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT
DATED 22.01.2008.
EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE INQUIRY REPORT NO.B5-17999/2009 OF THE
DEPUTY DIRECTOR DATED 26.09.2009.
EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO.754 OF 1983
DATED 13.02.1986.
EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2006(2)SCC 255
DATED 23.01.2006.
EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO.579 OF 2004
DATED 18.03.2004.
EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.25214 OF 1998
DATED 19.01.2006.
EXHIBIT P11: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO.35 OF 1990
DATED 07.02.1990.
EXHIBIT P12: TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT
DATED NIL.
EXHIBIT P13: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.B5/17999/07 OF THE DEPUTY
DIRECTOR DATED 17.03.2010.
EXHIBIT P14: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ORDER NO.MC/91/07/CA OF THE
MANAGER DATED 05.04.2010.
EXHIBIT P15: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL
OFFICER DATED 03.05.2010.
EXHIBIT P16: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT.) NO.1457/2011/G.EDN. OF THE
GOVERNMENT DATED 12.04.2011.
EXHIBIT P17: TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2003(2) K.L.T.SHORT
NOTES PAGE 26 CASE NO.34 DATED 26.03.2003.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:
----------------------------------------- NIL
//TRUE COPY//
Msd. P.A.TO JUDGE.
A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P(C) Nos.13047 & 23647 of 2011
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 27th day of January, 2014
JUDGMENT
Under challenge in these two writ petitions is the order dated 12.4.2011 passed by the Principal Secretary to Government, Department of General Education, Secretariat, Trivandrum (Ext.P33 in W.P(C) No.23647/2011 and Ext.P16 in W.P(C) No.13047/2011).
2. For convenience of discussion, the parties can be referred to as they are arrayed in W.P(C) No.23647/2011.
3. The petitioner, who was the headmaster of CMS Higher Secondary School, Thrissur, was issued with a memo of charges by the 5th respondent on the allegation of mis-appropriation of money and immoral conduct. He was suspended with effect from 13.8.2007. After receipt of explanation, a formal enquiry following the procedure prescribed in Rule 75 of Chapter XIV-A KER was conducted. The Deputy Director conducted the enquiry and it was found in the enquiry that all the charges were proved. Thereafter, the punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed upon the petitioner.
WP(C)s.13047&23647/11 -:2:-
4. Ultimately the matter came in revision before the Government and by the impugned order, the punishment imposed upon the petitioner was reduced, barring two increments and the 5th respondent was directed to reinstate the petitioner treating the suspension period as duty.
5. The petitioner alleges that even such a punishment should not have been imposed upon him. The 5th respondent Manager, on the other hand in W.P(C) No.13047/2011 filed by him alleges that the impugned order is against the principles of various verdicts of the Apex Court as well as this Court and the Government have no power to alter the punishment imposed by the Manager. Thus, these writ petitions.
6. Arguments have been heard and the impugned order was perused.
7. The concluding paragraph of the impugned order reads as follows:-
"The Government have examined the case in detail in view of the arguments of the petitioner, the Corporate Manager and reports of the director of Public Instruction, the Deputy Director of Education, Thrissur and the District Educational Officer, Thrissur. The detailed enquiry report shows that WP(C)s.13047&23647/11 -:3:- charges levelled against the Accused Officer is proved. The Accused Officer has totally denied the charges and has pointed that the report of enquiry by the Deputy Director of Education is vague and baseless. The disciplinary action is finalized on the basis of the report of the Deputy Director of Education. The argument of the accused officer on this hold weight as there is nothing in the report of the Deputy Director of Education to substantiate his findings. He has simply come up with some conclusion as if it is preconceived. At no stretch of imagination such a report can be the basis for awarding a major penalty of the kind imposed on the petitioner."
8. Since the impugned order was passed in exercise of the revisional powers conferred on the Government, this Court cannot go into the questions of fact while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It appears from record that the Government has considered the matter in the correct perspective. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no punishment could have been imposed upon the petitioner does not hold good, in the light of the observation made by the revisional authority in the impugned order.
9. The 5th respondent is aggrieved by the impugned order as it has reduced the punishment of removal of service imposed by WP(C)s.13047&23647/11 -:4:- the 5th respondent on the petitioner. The anxiety of the 5th respondent is that, if the impugned order is allowed to stand and the petitioner is reinstated in service, it will affect the smooth functioning of the school.
10. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has demitted his office on superannuation and, therefore, there cannot by any question of the petitioner coming back to the school.
11. On a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances, this Court of the definite view that there is absolutely no reason to interfere with the impugned order, as the same has been passed in the correct perspective. There is absolutely no impropriety, illegality or irregularity in the impugned order.
Therefore, both the writ petitions fail and accordingly, they are dismissed.
Sd/-
A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE krj /True Copy/ P.A to Judge