Disposed

The Manager, Calicut Girls' Vocational Higher Secondary School v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Nov 2012WP(C)/25695/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the District Educational Officer to expedite pending disciplinary proceedings against a staff member who failed to get leave approval and joined duty abroad. The petitioner, the school manager, complained of departmental inaction causing hardship to the school and students.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext. P6, comply with Ext. P7 circular, and complete disciplinary proceedings within two months.

The Manager, Calicut Girls' Vocational Higher… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/17TH KARTHIKA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 25695 of 2012 (J)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

THE MANAGER, CALICUT GIRLS' VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KUNDUNGAL, KALLAI P.O., CALICUT 673003.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶11

THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOZHIKODE-673001.

¶12

SABEENA T T P, 19/1404-C, ARC VIEW, CHALAPPURAM, CALICUT 673002.

¶13

R1 TO R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.A.LOWSY

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

DSV/-

¶16

WP(C).No. 25695 of 2012 (J)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :

¶19

EXT.P1 COPY OF THE LEAVE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 09.09.2010.

¶20

EXT.P2 COPY OF THE LEAVE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 12/09/2010.

¶21

EXT.P3 COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 25/09/2010 ADDRESSED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶22

EXT.P4 COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 29/10/2010 SENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER.

¶23

EXT.P5 COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 14/12/2010 ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER.

¶24

EXT.P6 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 29/10/2011 ADDRESSED TO THE GOVERNMENT BY R2.

¶25

EXT.P7 COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 14/06/1994 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.

¶26

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

DSV/-

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.

¶31

¶32

W.P. (C) No. 25695 of 2012

¶33

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

The petitioner, who is the Manager of Calicut Girls' Vocational Higher Secondary School, is before this Court, being aggrieved of callous inaction on the part of the departmental authorities and also the Government in finalizing the disciplinary proceedings sought to be pursued against the 3^rd respondent, in respect of serious misconduct committed by her in proceeding abroad without getting the leave sanctioned, placing the career of the students in doldrums, besides causing huge loss and hardships to the Management as well.

¶36

The sequence of events is as follows : The third respondent applied for Leave Without Allowances for a period of five years from 17.08.2006 to 16.08.2010 to join her spouse abroad. Thereafter, she jointed duty on 17.08.2010. Subsequently, she applied for leave of different categories.

¶37

W.P.(C) No. 25695 of 2012

¶38

: 2 :

¶39

The leave application submitted by the petitioner vide Ext. P2 in respect of a period of five years from 03.01.2011 was not recommended by the Head Mistress and the same was not sanctioned, which in turn was communicated to the 3^rd respondent vide Ext. P3, simultaneously asking her to report for duty, which was not acceded to. This was followed by Ext. P4 show cause notice issued by the petitioner on the basis of the report of the Head Mistress, which however was returned 'unclaimed'. The petitioner made a request to the 2^nd respondent for granting permission to proceed with disciplinary proceedings vide Ext. P5. Though the said request

¶40

was preferred as early as on 14.10.2010, the same was unfortunately kept in cold storage for a period of one year. Thereafter, the second respondent simply forwarded the same to the first respondent vide Ext. P6 dated 29.10.2011. Now, it was the turn of the first respondent to have it kept frozen for another year, in spite of the fact that the first respondent/Government itself vide Ext. P7 Circular has

¶41

W.P.(C) No. 25695 of 2012

¶42

: 3 :

¶43

explained the manner in which the applications for leave without allowance have to be dealt with. It is in the said circumstances, that the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition.

¶44

Despite completion of service of notice to the 3^rd respondent through special messenger, she has not chosen to appear before this Court.

¶45

Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 as well.

¶46

This Court finds that this is a matter, where proper steps have to be pursued against the 3^rd respondent, taking

¶47

the proceedings to a logical conclusion, more so, when the 3^rd respondent paid only scant regards to the fate and career of the children at large and has not chosen to contest the matter in any manner. The first respondent is directed to consider the matter, passing appropriate orders on Ext. P6, with reference to Ext. P7 circular and such other relevant orders/proceedings if any, after giving an opportunity of

¶48

W.P.(C) No. 25695 of 2012 : 4 :

¶49

hearing to both the sides, which shall be completed at the earliest, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Since the third respondent has not chosen to appear before this Court, it is open for the first respondent to proceed with further steps, after sending a registered notice to the 3^rd respondent in the last known address to be furnished by the petitioner as given in the leave application.

¶50

Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with copy of the writ petition before the first respondent for further steps.

¶51

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶52

sd/-

¶53

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE)

¶54

kmd

¶55

/True copy/

¶56

P.A. to Judge

The Manager, Calicut Girls' Vocational Higher Secondary School v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Manager, Calicut Girls' Vocational Higher Secondary School 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.N. Sreenivasan Namboodiri Vs the Travancore Devaswom Board

Aneesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Priya.S. Vs K.S.E.B

K.a.Stella Vs Asok Kumar Singh IAS

State of Kerala Vs S.Syam

Chandramathy Amma.K.S. Vs the Accountant General (a & E)