The Manager Vs. the Assistant Educational Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE8H DAY OF OCTOBER201316TH ASWINA, 1935 WP(C).No. 24594 of 2013 (Y) ---------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------- THE MANAGER KARUNARAM AUP SCHOOL, NANMINDA-673613. BY ADVS.SRI.M.R.SABU SMT.APARNA RAJAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER BALUSSERY, PIN-673 613.

2. K.SASINDRAN HEADMASTER (UNDER SUSPENSION), KARUNARAM AUP SCHOOL NANMINDA-673613. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.A.FAYAZ THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON0810-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 24594 of 2013 (Y) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS --------------------------- EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE

EXTENDING THE PERIOD OF PROBATION DATED1906-2008. EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF THE SHOWCAUSE NOTICE DATED1706-2013. EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF THE

OF SUSPENSION DATED1309-2013. EXHIBIT P4- TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT FORWARDED TO THE EDUCATIONAL AUTHORITY DATED1309-2013. EXHIBIT P5- TRUE COPY OF THE

CANCELLING THE SUSPENSION DATED2609-2013. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL ------------------------------- // TRUE COPY // TKS P.S. TO JUDGE C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.

---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.24594 of 2013 ---------------------------- Dated 8th October, 2013

The petitioner who is the Manager of Karunaram AUP School, Nanminda filed this writ petition seeking quashment of Ext.P5. Alleging certain misconducts against the 2nd respondent the petitioner placed him under suspension. Evidently, Ext.P3 order of suspension was issued in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. In terms of the provisions under Rule 67 of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules a copy pf Ext.P4 was forwarded to the competent educational authority. Subsequently, the petitioner was served with Ext.P5 order. As per Ext.P5, it was held that there was no evidence on the allegations made against the second respondent and consequently, the petitioner was directed to reinstate the 2nd respondent with effect from the date of suspension. It is in the said circumstance that this writ petition has been filed.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader.

3. Evidently, as per Ext.P3, the petitioner placed the 2nd respondent under suspension in contemplation of the disciplinary WP(C).No.24594/2013 2 proceedings. It is also evident that the said order of suspension was forwarded to the competent educational authority and it is thereafter that Ext.P5 order was passed. As noticed hereinbefore, as per Ext.P5, the first respondent directed the petitioner to reinstate the 2nd respondent with effect from the date of order of suspension. The tenor of Ext.P5 would undoubtedly reveal that it is an order passed under Rule 67(8) of Chapter XIV-A of KER. Virtually, the petitioner is aggrieved by the finding in Ext.P5 to the effect that there is no evidence on the allegations made against the second respondent. According to the petitioner, if the said finding will remain intact it would render the disciplinary proceedings (which is yet to be initiated) against the second respondent, otiose. The second respondent was placed under suspension in contemplation of the disciplinary proceedings. But, memo of charges is yet to be served on the second respondent and in such circumstances, there cannot be any doubt with respect to the fact that the disciplinary proceedings cannot be said to have been initiated. In Ext.P5 there is a reference about the enquiry conducted by the first respondent. In view of the incontestable position that the disciplinary proceedings are yet to be initiated against the 2nd respondent the reference about the enquiry and the consequential finding can only be construed as one made pursuant to an enquiry conducted in terms of the provisions under Rule 67(8) of Chapter XIV-A of KER. As per the same, WP(C).No.24594/2013 3 it is well within the power of the competent authority to conduct an enquiry into the grounds of suspension to arrive at a conclusion whether there is any ground for suspending the concerned employee or whether there is any reason to continue with the suspension beyond 15 days. Certainly, the order in Ext.P5 can only be taken as an order under Rule 67(8) of Chapter XIV-A. In such circumstances, I have no hesitation to hold that the finding in Ext.P5 to the effect that there is no evidence on the allegations cannot have any bar or in that matter any impact or effect on the disciplinary proceedings, in case it is initiated against the 2nd respondent. Ext.P5 is an order passed by the Assistant Educational Officer under Rule 67(8) of Chapter XIV-A of KER and therefore, it is not an appealable order. In such circumstances, only a revision will lie against Ext.P5. Hence, it will be open to the petitioner to challenge Ext.P5 order invoking the revisional jurisdiction under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV-A of KER. In case the petitioner desires to invoke the said power he may do so expeditiously. Subject to the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS