Kerala High Court
P.Chandran vs A.Shajahan Ias on 1 November, 2018
Author: Anu Sivaraman
Bench: Anu Sivaraman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
THURSDAY ,THE 01ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 10TH KARTHIKA, 1940
Con.Case(C).No. 475 of 2018 IN WP(C). 2431/2016
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WPC 2431/2016 of HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
PETITIONER/S:
P.CHANDRAN
S/O. THE LATE NARAYANA PANIKKER, AGED 56 YEARS, HEAD
MASTER (RETIRED)KVUP SCHOOL, VADAKKUMPURAM, RESIDING
AT NHARAKKATT HOUSE, CHOVANNUR P.O, KUNNAMKULAM, PIN
680 503
BY ADVS.
SMT.K.RADHAMANI AMMA
SRI.P.ABDUL NISHAD
RESPONDENT/S:
1 A.SHAJAHAN IAS
AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001
2 K.V. MOHANKUMAR I.A.S
AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONER,DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
INSTRUCTION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001
3 MINI.V.C
AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONER,DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,TIRUR,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
4 ISMAIL.K
AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNWON TO THE
PETITIONER,ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,KUTTIPPURAM,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
5 P.ROHIT MENON
S/O.SRI.V.B.RAVUNNI MENON,AGED 35 YEARS, MANAGER,KVUP
Cont.Case(C).475/18 2
SCHOOL, VADAKKUMPURAM, PIN 676552
6 C.ANIL KUMAR
FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONER,DEPUTY SECRETARY,GENERAL EDUCATION B
DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
ADDL R6 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 26/07/2018 IN
IA 557/18 IN COC 475/18
695001
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.B.RAMANUNNI
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.GP B VINOD
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 01.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Cont.Case(C).475/18 3
ANU SIVARAMAN, J.
-----------------------------------------------
Cont.Case(C).No. 475 of 2018
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of November, 2018
JUDGMENT
This contempt of court case is filed alleging non compliance with Annexure A1 judgment dated 17.8.2017. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner seeking implementation of the orders of the Director of Public Instructions and the Manager directing his reinstatement as also seeking directions to treat the period of suspension as duty for all purposes. The writ petition was heard along with W.P(C).No.29087 of 2015 filed by the Manager challenging the said orders. After hearing all parties and considering the contentions, this Court found that since the petitioner had already retired from service, the finding of the Director of Public Instructions and the Government that the misconduct alleged against the petitioner was not sufficient to award the penalty of permanent reversion does not require interference. It was held that the petitioner would be entitled to the benefits arising out of the orders of the DPI and the Government and that the period of suspension would have to be regularised. W.P(C).No.29087 of 2015 filed by the Manager was dismissed. The respondents were directed to implement the orders of the DPI and the Government. The 1 st respondent Government was Cont.Case(C).475/18 4 directed to pass orders regularising the period of suspension from 22.8.2012 to 13.11.2013.
2. When no orders were passed within the time limit granted, the contempt of court case was moved. However, it appears that a show cause notice was issued on 19.2.2018 to the petitioner intimating continuance of the disciplinary action in terms of Rule 3A of Part III KSR and a tentative decision was taken to reduce Rs.300/- from his monthly pension. The show cause notice was served along with a covering letter of the District Educational Officer dated 5.4.2018. Though a reply was submitted by the petitioner, order dated 20.6.2018 was passed confirming the tentative decision which, according to the petitioner, amounts to clear, grave and continuing contempt of the orders and authority of this Court. Though notice was ordered to the respondents and an impleading petition to implead the person who rendered Annexure VI order was also allowed and notice was taken out to the additionally impleaded 6th respondent, affidavit has been filed only by the 5th respondent stating that it was for the Government to have passed orders and no contempt has been committed by the Manager.
3. The learned Government Pleader, defending the Government order, would submit that the petitioner had been proceeded against by the Manager and sanction was also sought for imposing a penalty. The DPI had refused permission to impose the penalty of reversion from the Cont.Case(C).475/18 5 post of Headmaster. This was upheld by the Government. However, it is stated that even though the petitioner retired from service before any penalty could be imposed on him, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him had not been concluded and as such, it was open to the Government to have passed an order in the nature of Annexure V. Reliance is placed on Rule 3A of Part III KSR to contend that in case of proved misconduct, the Government would have the right to order recovery from pension.
4. An affidavit was also placed on record by the 1 st respondent contending that Annexure V order and the later orders regularising the period of suspension amount to compliance with the directions in the judgment.
5. I have considered the contentions advanced. It is not in question that after the orders of the DPI and the Government refusing permission to impose the penalty suggested by the Manager, the petitioner had retired from service on 31.3.2016. The authority competent to impose penalty on the petitioner was the Manager of the School. Admittedly, the right of the Manager to impose any penalty on the petitioner after his retirement was not saved either by the provisions of the Kerala Education Act or the Rules framed thereunder or by any reservation sought for or obtained from this Court in the judgment. After finding that the petitioner had retired from service, this Court had specifically directed the Cont.Case(C).475/18 6 regularisation of the period of his suspension. All that the Government could have done in the above circumstances was to consider whether the suspension was justified in the facts and circumstances of the case and pass an order as to how the period of suspension was liable to be treated.
6. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is evidently as to the correctness of the order now passed. This Court, in contempt jurisdiction, is not expected to consider the correctness of the order passed. What is being considered is only whether the order amounts to a prima facie contempt of the directions of this Court. Though the direction of this Court was to consider the issue of regularisation of the period of suspension, the Government has gone on to pass an order of reduction of pension. Now that such an order is in existence, the correctness of the same has to be considered before it can be set aside. In the above view of the matter, the order passed by the respondents has necessarily to be made subject matter of a challenge in appropriate proceedings. The contention that the order is per se contempt of court therefore cannot be accepted. The contempt of court case is closed leaving open all contentions of the petitioner.
Sd/-
ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE vgs Cont.Case(C).475/18 7