Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR FRIDAY,THE8H DAY OF AUGUST201417TH SRAVANA, 1936 WP(C).No. 11749 of 2013 (P) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SUDHAKARAN V.K., AGED52YEARS, ASSISTANT TEACHER, DEVI VILASAM AUP SCHOOL, ARIYALLUR, BEYPUR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTPAURAM-695 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTPAURAM-695 001.
3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PARAPPANAGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 303.
4. THE MANAGER, DEVI VILASAM AUP SCHOOL, ARIYALLUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 312.
5. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), KOZHIKODE-673 001. R1-3 & 5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SANEER P.M. R4 BY ADVS. SRI.M.V.BOSE SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN SMT.NISHA BOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON0808-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PJ WP(C).No. 11749 of 2013 (P) --------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1. A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
OF THE3D RESPONDENT DATED245/2006 BASED ON THE ORDER
OF DDE. EXHIBIT P2. A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED2411/2007. EXHIBIT P3. A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED112/2007. EXHIBIT P4. A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
DATED184/2009. EXHIBIT P5. A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT
IN WPC NO.27206/2009 DATED82/2010. EXHIBIT P6. A TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO AND STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS DATED237/2010. EXHIBIT P7. A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DTED1309/2010. EXHIBIT P8. TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED31/2011. EXHIBIT P9. TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED NIL. EXHIBIT P10. TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED216/2012. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- NIL. / TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE PJ P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
------------------------------------ W.P.(C) NO. 11749 of 2013 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 08th day of August, 2014
JUDGMENT
The petitioner was the Head Master of Devi Vilasam AUP School, Ariyallur from 02.02.1996 to 15.06.2010. On the ground that the petitioner had caused loss to the Government, as per Ext.P4 order, the second respondent ordered to recover a sum of Rs.2,09,608/- from the petitioner. The petitioner challenged Ext.P4 order in W.P.C272062009. As per Ext.P5 judgment, this Court held that steps cannot be initiated against the petitioner for recovery of the loss caused to the Government, without a disciplinary proceedings. Thereupon, disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner by issuing Ext.P6 memo of charges. Ext.P7 is the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the memo of charges. According the petitioner, before finalising the disciplinary proceedings, steps have been taken under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act for recovery of the amounts in respect of which disciplinary W.P.(C) NO. 11749 of 2013 2 proceedings have been initiated. Ext.P9 is the demand notice issued under Section 7 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. Ext.P9 Indicates that the said proceedings are for the recovery of the very same amount involved in the disciplinary proceedings. A counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent. Paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit reads thus: "with regard to Paragraph(10) of the Writ Petition, it is submitted that, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. Charge memo was issued on 23.07.2010 and Show Cause Notice was issued on 24.01.2011. On 17.02.2011 disciplinary action was finalised." Even though it is stated in the counter affidavit that the proceedings initiated pursuant to Ext.P6 memo of charges have been finalised, there is no statement in the counter affidavit that the final order passed in the proceedings has been communicated to the petitioner.
2. A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner to the said counter affidavit. In the reply affidavit, in paragraph 5, petitioner reiterates that he is W.P.(C) NO. 11749 of 2013 3 not served with the order finalising the disciplinary proceedings till date.
3. The petitioner is entitled to challenge the decision in the disciplinary proceedings, if the same is adverse to his interests. It is beyond dispute that the petitioner cannot challenge the decision, unless the decision is communicated to him. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the order referred to in the counter affidavit has been despatched to the petitioner on 19.02.2011. It is not stated in the counter affidavit that the final order has been despatched to the petitioner. Further, despatch of the order will not serve the purpose of the petitioner. The petitioner has to get the copy of the order to work out his remedies.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner as per Ext.P6 memo of charges is without jurisdiction. This is a contention to be raised by the petitioner before the authority before which the final W.P.(C) NO. 11749 of 2013 4 order in the disciplinary proceedings is challenged.
5. In the circumstances, I direct the third respondent to serve on the petitioner, the final order passed in the disciplinary proceedings commenced as per Ext.P6 memo of charges, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the Revenue Recovery Act pursuant to the final order shall be kept in abeyance for a period of 12 weeks to enable the petitioner to work out his remedies against the final order referred to above. The writ petition is disposed of as above. P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE. lsn