Manoj K.B vs The Director Of General Education
2022 Latest Caselaw 7997 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
      THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
  WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 8TH ASHADHA, 1944

                  WP(C) NO. 6074 OF 2022

PETITIONER/S:

           MANOJ K.B
           AGED 50 YEARS
           VOCATIONAL INSTRUCTOR IN AUTOMOBILE TECHNOLOGY,
           V.H.S.S. MANJAPPARA,
           RESIDING AT BHASKARA BHAVAN,
           TRIKKANNAMANGAL, KOTTARAKKARA P.O.,
           KOLLAM-691 506

           BY ADVS.
           N.SASIDHARAN UNNITHAN
           A.R.DILEEP

RESPONDENT/S:

    1      THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
           VHSE WING, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING,
           SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

    2      THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
           VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION,
           REGIONAL OFFICE, KOLLAM-691 008

    3      THE PRINCIPAL
           V.H.S.S. , MANJAPPARA, MANJAPPARA P.O.,
           KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 533

    4      THE MANAGER,
           V.H.S.S. , MANJAPPARA, MANJAPPARA P.O.,
           KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 533

           SMT NISHA BOSE SR GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION     (CIVIL) HAVING    COME UP    FOR
ADMISSION ON 29.06.2022,    THE COURT ON     THE SAME    DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 6074 OF 2022

                                     2



                                JUDGMENT

The petitioner states that while working as Vocational Instructor

(Automobile Technology) in the Manjappara Vocational Higher Secondary

School (VHSS), Kollam, he was placed under suspension by Ext.P3 order

dated 2.9.2019. Based on the request made by the Manager, the 2nd

respondent conducted a preliminary enquiry and submitted a report

recommending disciplinary action against the petitioner. However, no

further action was taken by issuing a charge memo. Complaining that the

petitioner was kept under suspension without any cause, he is stated to

have submitted Ext.P6 representation before the 1st respondent seeking

reinstatement, payment of subsistence allowance and also for issuance of

directions to conclude the disciplinary proceedings. Seeking issuance of

directions to consider Ext.P6, the petitioner has approached this Court with

this writ petition.

2. The records reveal that during the pendency of the writ

petition, the Manager concluded the disciplinary proceedings and

forwarded Ext.P10 enquiry report to the petitioner and the 1st respondent.

The petitioner was directed to furnish his response for not imposing the

punishment of removal from service with retrospective effect. According WP(C) NO. 6074 OF 2022

to the petitioner, the enquiry was conducted behind the back of the

petitioner and no notice of enquiry was served. In the said circumstances,

the petitioner is stated to have submitted Ext.P12 representation before the

1st respondent contending that Ext.P10 is illegal and also requesting to

consider Ext.P12 before approving the request made by the Manager.

3. Though notice was issued to the party respondents and the

same was served, they have not chosen to appear either in person or

through counsel.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted

that this writ petition can be disposed of by directing the 1st respondent to

consider Exhibits P6 and P12 representations and take a decision.

5. I have heard Sri.N. Sasidharan Unnithan, the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

6. After having carefully evaluated the contentions raised in this

writ petition, the submissions made across the Bar, and the facts and

circumstances, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of by

issuing the following directions:

a) There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to take up,

consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P6 and P12, WP(C) NO. 6074 OF 2022

after affording an opportunity of being heard, either

physically or virtually, to the petitioner herein or his

authorised representative and the respondents 3 and 4.

b) Orders, as directed above, shall be passed expeditiously,

in any event, within a period of two months from the date

of production of a copy of this judgment.

c) It would be open to the petitioner to produce a copy of the

writ petition along with the judgment before the

concerned respondent for further action.

This writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE

avs WP(C) NO. 6074 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6074/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E3/2139/05/RDIS DATED 25.8.2005 OF THE DIRECTOR OF VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 15.2.2022 ISSUED FROM THE VIJAYA HOSPITAL ,KOTTARAKKARA

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OS SUSPENSION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 2.9.2019 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT MANAGER

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24.10.2019 OF THE PETITIONER SUBMITTED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 7.12.2019 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT SENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10.2.2022 OF THE PETITIONER SENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NON-EMPLOYMENT CERTIFICATE DATED 14/3/2022 OF THE PETITIONER SENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 14/3/2022 OF THE PETITIONER SENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 14/3/2022 OF THE PETITIONER SENT TO THE 2NDRESPONDENT.

Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 23/3/2022 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT

Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30/3/2022 OF THE PETITIONER SENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 4/4/2022 OF THE PETITIONER SENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT