Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.32 seconds)
Documents citing M.Muhammed Basheer vs The Secretary To Government on 2 August, 2010

The Manager vs State Of Kerala on 15 November, 2011

2. Charge-sheets are said to have been issued for misconduct against respondents 4 and 5. An enquiry is also said to have been conducted. Pursuant to the enquiry, the Manager is said to have issued a proposal for punishment of removal from service of both the respondents 4 and 5, by a second show cause notice. As mandated under Rule 74 of Chapter XIV-A of Kerala Education Rules, 1959 [for brevity "KER"], the Manager also approached the District Educational Officer [for brevity "DEO"] seeking approval of the punishment proposed. The DEO found that the punishment proposed is disproportionate on a reference to the gravity of the offences alleged and directed the WP(C).No.21799 of 2014 - 2 - Manager, specifically, to impose punishment under sub-rule (1) or (2) of Rule 65 of Chapter XIV-A KER. The Manager contends that the said order is unsustainable for reason of the DEO not being competent to propose an alternate punishment. He could either reject or approve the punishment and in the event of rejection, the Manager could make an alternate proposal. So much is clear as has been declared by a Division Bench of this Court, in the decision reported in Muhammed v. Secretary to Government [2003 (2) KLT SN 26 (Case No.34)].
Kerala High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - K V Chandran - Full Document

Varkey P.J vs State Of Kerala on 19 February, 2025

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though the disciplinary proceedings is culminated in Ext.P21, in the light of the directions given by the Division Bench in Ext.P19 judgment, he is entitled to challenge the entire proceedings behind Ext.P21 which is not yet concluded. Since the revision petition preferred by the petitioner raises allegation against the disciplinary proceedings, without considering the same, Ext.P1 was issued confirming the punishment imposed by the Manager with slight modification with respect to treating the period of suspension. In support of his contention, it is submitted that the entire challenge raised against Exts.P18 and P19 is with respect to the proceedings under Rule 74 of Chapter XIV A KER. This court has not considered the alleged 2025:KER:27110 WP(C) No. 26470 of 2012 11 irregularities in the enquiry conducted by the educational authorities. It is also contended that, the petitioner even now reserved with the right to challenge Ext.P21 under Rule 80, has brought the attention of this Court to the reported decision in Muhammed v. Secretary to Government [2003 (2) KLT SN 34] i.e. none other than Ext.P19 judgment wherein as stated above, power under Rule 74 was considered by the Court and found that the educational authority cannot suggest imposing an alternative penalty and government cannot pass an order under which subordinate authority could not have legally passed.
Kerala High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1