Allowed

The Manager,Central U.P.School,Nattika v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC29 Jan 2008OP/14502/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A manager of an aided school challenged an order requiring him to reimburse salary paid to a suspended headmistress. The court quashed the recovery order due to violation of natural justice, specifically the denial of an opportunity to show cause.

What did the court decide?

The order (Ext.P12) directed for recovery of Rs. 7,970/- from the petitioner was quashed, and the consequent order (Ext.P13) was also quashed.

The Manager,Central U.P.School,Nattika Vs State of… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2008 / 9TH MAGHA 1929

¶5

OP.No. 14502 of 1999(B)

¶6

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

-----------THE MANAGER, CENTRAL U.P. SCHOOL, NATTIKA.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.GOVIND K.BHARATHAN SRI.K.S.BALAKRISHNAN SMT.S.USHA SAI

SMT.M.HEMALATHA

RESPONDENTS:

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHAVAKKAD.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, VALAPPAD.

¶17

P.R.SETHU BAI, HEADMISTRESS, CENTRAL U.P.SCHOOL, NATTIKA.

¶18

BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SURESH KUMAR SRI.B.K.PURUSHOTHAMAN

¶19

SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.M.R.SREELATHA

¶20

THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

OP NO.14502/1999/B

¶22

ORDER ON CMP NO.23402/1999 IN OP NO.14502/1999

¶23

DISMISSED

¶24

SD/-

¶25

29.1.2008 S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶26

APPENDIX

¶27

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶28

EXT. P1:	COPY OF LETTER DATED 13-8-1989 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXT. P2:	COPY OF LETTER DATED 19-8-1989 ADDRESSED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER.
EXT. P3:	COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 21-8-1989 SENT BY THE PETITIONER DATED 21-8-1989 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT. P4:	COPY OF ORDER NO.A-3977/89 DATED 29-8-1989, ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXT. P5:	COPY OF ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 20-12-1989 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT. P6:	COPY OF REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 30-12-1989.
EXT. P7:	COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.A. NO.627/90 DATED 4-12-1990.
EXT. P8:	COPY OF ORDER DATED 22-1-1991 IN R.P. NO.9/91 IN W.A.NO.627/90.
EXT. P9:	COPY OF LETTER NO.38656/B2/90/GE DATED 7-6-1991 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT. P10:	COPY OF ORDER NO.G.O.(RT)NO.1721/90/GL. EDN. DATED 8-6-1990 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT. P11:	COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 1-9-1992 IN O.P. 10291/92 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
EXT. P12:	COPY OF ORDER NO.G.O.524/99/GL. EDN. DATED 2-2-1999 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT. P13:	COPY OF LETTER NO.C-9021/98 DATED 23-4-1999 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
	/TRUE COPY/

¶29

P.A. TO JUDGE

¶30

¶31

S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ======================= O.P. No. 14502 of 1999(B)

¶32

=======================

¶33

Dated this the 29th day of January, 2008

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

The petitioner is the manager of an aided U.P. School. He initiated disciplinary proceedings against the 5th respondent who was the Headmistress of the school. The 5th respondent was suspended from 16.8.1989. There was several litigations relating to the suspension. In O.P. No.7472/89 this Court passed an interim direction to the 3rd respondent to conduct an enquiry into the charges framed by the petitioner against the 5th respondent and submit a report before 24.11.89. Pursuant to the same, the 3rd respondent DEO conducted an enquiry and submitted Ext.P5 report in which he absolved the 5th respondent from all the charges levelled against her. Petitioner filed revision before the Government challenging that enquiry report, which was rejected by Ext.P12 order in which there was a further direction to recover an amount of Rs.7,970/- drawn and disbursed to the 5th respondent for the period she was kept out of service, from the

¶36

O.P. No. 14502/1999/B -2-

¶37

petitioner-manager. Subsequently by Ext.P13 order, the 4th respondent-AEO fixed the said amount as liability on the petitioner and directed the petitioner to pay the said amount. The petitioner is challenging Exts. P12 and P13 orders.

¶38

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader. No counter affidavit has been filed in this case. The petitioner proceeded as if Ext.P5 enquiry report is a report filed under Rule 67(8). But from a reading of Ext.P5, I find that Ext.P5 is not a report under Rule 67 (8) relating to suspension of the headmistress, but is actually a report on the enquiry into the charges of misconducts alleged against the 5th respondent under Rule 75 of Chapter XIV A of KER. On a reading of Ext.P5, I am satisfied that there is no infirmity in the same. The DEO had conducted an enquiry after complying with the principles of natural justice and has drawn up Ext.P5 report on the basis of evidence adduced in the enquiry. There is absolutely nothing therein to indicate that the findings arrived at by the DEO is in any way perverse. Therefore, as far as the challenge against Ext.P5 and Ext.P12 rejecting the revision petition filed by the petitioner, are concerned I do not

¶39

O.P. No. 14502/1999/B -3-

¶40

find anything wrong.

¶41

However, in Ext.P12 order, which is an order passed in a revision petition filed by the petitioner, petitioner has been saddled with the liability to reimburse the amount of Rs.7,970/paid as salary to the Headmistress, while she was kept out of service by the petitioner. That should have been done only after issuing a notice to the petitioner directing him to show cause as to why the said amount should not be recovered from him. Since petitioner was not given such an opportunity to explain his stand, that part of Ext.P12 whereby petitioner has been saddled with liability for payment of Rs.7970/- is unsustainable. Accordingly, I quash Ext.P12 to the extent it directs recovery of the said amount from the petitioner. Consequently Ext.P13 by which the AEO has directed the petitioner to pay the said amount is also quashed. The original petition is disposed of as above.

¶42

Sd/- S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶43

The Manager,Central U.P.School,Nattika v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Manager,Central U.P.School,Nattika v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Secy., Peruvayal Area Clay Vs the President,Peruvayal Clay Workers

K.K.Jayasenan Vs Labour Court,Ernakulam

O.Chandrasekharan Vs Lower Court

Kunjan, S/O.Kandan Vs v. Mohammed Ismail & Another

Jalajakumari K.P. Vs the District Educational Officer

G.K.Geetha Krishnan Vs State of Kerala