Kerala High Court
Hariharan K vs Hariharan K on 11 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 21TH POUSHA, 1942
RP.No.944 OF 2020 IN WA. 1562/2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 01-12-2020 IN WA 1562/2020 OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/1st RESPONDENT:
HARIHARAN K
S/O. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 50 YEARS,
HARISREE, CHEMBRASSERI P.O, PANDIKKAD, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT-676 521, HEADMASTER (UNDER SUSPENSION),
A.U.P.SCHOOL, CHEMBRASSERI P.O, CHEMBRASSERI-676 521
BY ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT & RESPONDENTS 2 TO 6:
1 THE MANAGER
A.U.P. SCHOOL, CHEMBRASSERI P.O, CHEMBRASSERI ,
PANDIKKAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 521
2 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
3 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014
4 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MALAPPURAM P.O-676 505.
5 ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DIST.-676 121
6 PRAVEEN MARANAT ,
(REPRESENTATIVE OF THE MANAGEMENT), A.U.P. SCHOOL
CHEMBRASSERY, CHEMBRASSERI P.O, PANDIKKAD,
MALAPPURAM-676 521
7 VIDYA K,
W/O. PRAVEEN MARANAT, AGED 39 YEARS, U.P.S.T, A.U.P
SCHOOL, CHEMBASSERI P.O, PANDIKKAD, MALAPPURAM-676 521
RP Nos.944 & 946/2020 -2-
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. A.J.VARGHESE-SR.G.P.
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.01.2021, ALONG WITH RP.946/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RP Nos.944 & 946/2020 -3-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 21TH POUSHA, 1942
RP.No.946 OF 2020 IN WA. 1545/2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 01-12-2020 IN WA 1545/2020 OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT:
HARIHARAN K.
S/O.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 50 YEARS,
HARISREE, CHEMBRASSERI P.O., PANDIKKAD, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT 676 521, HEADMASTER (UNDER SUSPENSION)
A.U.P.SCHOOL, CHEMBRASSERI P.O.,
CHEMBRASSERI 676 521
BY ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT & RESPONDENTS 2 TO 6:
1 THE MANAGER
A.U.P.SCHOOL, CHEMBRASSERI P.O., CHEMBRASSERI
PANDIKKAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676 521
2 STATE OF KERALA
REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001
3 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
MALAPPURAM P.O. 676 505
4 ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
MANJERI, MALAPPURAM P.O. 676 121
5 PRAVEEN MARANAT
(REPRESENTATIVE OF THE MANAGEMENT),
A.U.P. SCHOOL, CHEMBARASSERY, CHEMBARASSERI P.O.,
PANDIKKAD, MALAPPURAM 676 521
RP Nos.944 & 946/2020 -4-
6 VIDYA K.
W/O.PRAVEEN MARANAT, AGED 39 YEARS,
U.P.S.T. A.U.P. SCHOOL, CHEMBARASSERY,
CHEMBARASSERI P.O., PANDIKKAD,
MALAPPURAM 676 521
R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.01.2021, ALONG WITH RP.944/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RP Nos.944 & 946/2020 -5-
ORDER
DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
Shaffique, J:
These two review petitions have been filed inter alia
contending that there is error apparent on the face of the record.
2. The learned Single Judge having taken note of the fact
that the enquiry against the petitioner with reference to certain
memo of charges had been completed, directed reinstatement of
the petitioner. This came to be challenged by the respondent
management by filing W.A Nos.1562/2020 and 1545/2020. The
review petitioner did not challenge the said order. The said order
reads as under:-
"Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned counsel appearing for the respondents at
considerable length.
2. In view of the fact that the enquiry conducted by the
DEO as against the petitioner is said to be completed,
there will be an interim direction to the respondents to
immediately reinstate the petitioner in service. The
necessary shall be done by the 5th respondent within one
week from today."
3. After considering the materials placed on record, we
allowed the appeal and directed disciplinary proceedings to be
completed within a short time frame. It is submitted by learned
counsel for the management that they have completed the
disciplinary action and the proposal for punishment is placed
before the educational authority and tomorrow it is posted for
hearing.
4. One of the contentions urged for filing review petitions
is that there was a stay of the enquiry proceedings and therefore
the educational authority was not entitled to proceed with the
enquiry. As already stated, the learned Single Judge had taken
cognizance of the fact that the enquiry had been completed in its
order dated 20-11-2020, which is extracted above, which was not
challenged by the review petitioner. The contention urged by the
review petitioner is that the enquiry was with reference to the
order of suspension. Such a contention is absolutely baseless and
ununderstandable.
5. Of course, there were two proceedings. One is
regarding the suspension, which matter was pending before the
Government and the Government had passed the final order
which is under challenge in W.P (C) No.17659/2020. W.P (C)
No.2480/2020 was filed challenging notice issued by the
educational authority proposing to complete the enquiry within a
specified time.
6. These review petitions have been filed producing the
earlier order dated 29-01-2020 by which two weeks stay had
been granted with reference to closure of enquiry, filing report
etc. When the matter was finally heard, the learned Single Judge
did not find any error being committed in completing the enquiry
proceedings and it is on that premise that the order dated 29-01-
2020 had been passed. The review petitioner at that time did not
have a case that the enquiry was conducted when there was an
order of stay. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the review
petitioner that a contempt case had been filed for having
proceeded with the enquiry. But having gone through the
materials placed on record, we don't think that this is a case in
which any contumacious conduct could be inferred against any
person. This is a case wherein enquiry proceedings had been
initiated against the review petitioner by issuing memo of
charges and closure of report came to be stayed for some time.
In the meantime, enquiry was completed and the matter was
brought to the notice of this court. When this court was informed
about the completion of the enquiry proceedings and on the
basis of which the learned Single Judge had acted upon, we don't
think that there is any illegality being committed in completing
the enquiry proceedings.
6. As matters stand now, the disciplinary action is to be
finalised by the management and as the management had
already issued a show cause notice, the punishment had been
proposed and the matter is pending before the DEO,
Malappuram. Under such circumstances, we don't think that we
will be justified in interfering with the present proceedings by
invoking the review jurisdiction, especially when there is no
error apparent on the face of record.
Accordingly, RP Nos.944 & 946/2020 are dismissed.
(Sd/-)
A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE.
(Sd/-)
GOPINATH P., JUDGE.
AMG
APPENDIX OF RP 944/2020
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.01.2020 IN W.P.C
NO. 2480/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
MANAGER DATED 29.09.2020.
ANNEXURE A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYERS NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
REVEW PETITIONER THROUGH HIS ADVOCATE DATED
01.10.2020.
ANNEXURE A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE MANAGER
(1ST RESPONDENT)DATED 07.10.2020.
APPENDIX OF RP 946/2020
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.1.2020 IN WP(C)
NO.2480/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY
THE MANAGER DATED 29.9.2020
ANNEXURE A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYERS NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
REVIEW PETITIONER THROUGH HIS ADVOCATE DATED
1.10.2020
ANNEXURE A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE MANAGER
(1ST RESPONDENT) DATED 7.10.2020
