The Manager vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 3945 Ker

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

  WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 14TH MAGHA,1942

                   WP(C).No.2740 OF 2021(N)


PETITIONER :-

            THE MANAGER,
            SREE DURGAVILASAM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL
            PERAMANGALAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

            BY ADVS.
            SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.)
            SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN
            KUM.T.S.ATHIRA
            SRI.SACHIN RAMESH
            SRI.ASADU AHMMED CHULLINTE
            SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI

RESPONDENTS :-

      1     STATE OF KERALA
            REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
            GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
            GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001

      2     THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
            THRISSUR, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
            EDUCATION, 2ND FLOOR, CIVIL STATION,
            AYANTHOL, THRISSUR - 680 003

      3     SRI P.R.BABU
            HEADMASTER (UNDER SUSPENSION),
            SREE DURGAVILASAM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
            PERAMANGALAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 545

            BY SRI.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR,Sr.GOVERNMENT PLEADER


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 03.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.2740 OF 2021(N)

                                    -: 2 :-


                                JUDGMENT

Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2021

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :-

"(i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext.P6 and Ext.P7 issued in violation to the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in Manager, Seetharam UPS v. State of Kerala and another (2012 (2) KLT 338) and quash the same. Or in the alternative

(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P1 without any further delay."

2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner

that the petitioner had placed the 3 rd respondent under suspension by

order dated 14.1.2021 for a period of 15 days. A memo of charges

had also been served on the 3rd respondent. The petitioner had made

a request for extension of the period of suspension as also for conduct

of an enquiry under Rule 75 of Chapter XIV A KER. It is submitted

that on 16.1.2021, Ext.P6 notice was issued by the AEO for the

purpose of a preliminary enquiry presumably under Rule 67(8) of

Chapter XIV A KER. However, a hearing was conducted and on

27.1.2021, Ext.P7 proceedings had been issued by the AEO finding WP(C).No.2740 OF 2021(N)

that there is no relevance for any Rule 75 enquiry and that the 3 rd

respondent is liable to be reinstated immediately cancelling the order

of suspension. It appears from Ext.P7 that the AEO has considered

each of the charges levelled against the 3 rd respondent and has

entered a finding that the charges are not substantiated. The learned

counsel for the petitioner submits that the proper procedure for

conduct of an equiry under Rule 75 of Chapter XIV A KER are

specified in the Rules and that the said procedure has not been

followed by the AEO in the proceedings in Ext.P7. It is submitted that

the notice was issued specifically for a preliminary enquiry and that

the conduct of the Rule 75 enquiry was a farce. Ext.P8 revision

petition along with a stay petition has, therefore, been submitted by

the petitioner before the Government and a prayer is sought for

considering the same in accordance with law. The learned Senior

Counsel also relies on the decision of this Court in Manager,

Seetharam UPS v. State of Kerala and another [2012 (2) KLT 338]

to contend that Rule 75 enquiry is to be conducted in compliance with

the specific provisions of the KER and no summary enquiry can be

conducted as has been done in Ext.P7.

4. Having heard the learned Government Pleader also, I am of

the opinion that Ext.P8 revision petition and the stay petition

preferred by the petitioner are liable to be considered by the 1 st WP(C).No.2740 OF 2021(N)

respondent in accordance with law. There will, accordingly, be a

direction to the 1st respondent to take up, consider and pass orders on

Ext.P8 revision petition along with the stay petition preferred by the

petitioner, in accordance with law. The respondents shall issue notice

to the petitioner as well as the 3 rd respondent and pass appropriate

orders on Ext.P8 within a period of one month from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such time, reinstatement order

in Ext.P7 shall be kept in abeyance.

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

Jvt/5.2.2021 WP(C).No.2740 OF 2021(N)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES AND STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS VIDE NO.7/20-21 DATED 28.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 4.1.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER/PROCEEDINGS VIDE NO.8/2021 DATED 14.1.2021 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 14.1.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST VIDE NO.34/2020-21 DATED 25.1.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE VIDE No.B5/8138/20 DATED 16.1.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER No.B5-993/2021 DATED 27.1.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 29.1.2021 (WITHOUT ANNEXURES) ALONG WITH THE STAY PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE