Disposed

U.Padmini v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 May 2016WA/909/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of appeal against order refusing to quash recovery order. Court held that legal propriety of recovery will be examined during reconsideration of lower authority's order directed by single judge. Recovery kept in abeyance during reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

Recovery place to be kept in abeyance until reconsideration of lower appellate authority order is considered. Appeal disposed.

U.Padmini Vs State of Kerala — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶6

MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2016/2ND JYAISHTA, 1938

¶7

WA.No. 909 of 2016 () IN WP(C).6244/2008

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 6244/2008 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 19.11.2014

¶9

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶10

U.PADMINI, FORMER HEADMISTRESS, (NOW WORKING AS U.P.S.A.), K.V.U.P. SCHOOL, KAKKADIPURAM, ALANGODE P.O., VIA. EDAPAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.) SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶13

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 001.

¶14

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 014.

¶15

THE DISTRICT EDUCATINAL OFFICER TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 676 101.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, EDAPPAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT -679 576.

¶17

THE MANAGER, K.V.U.P.SCHOOL, KAKKADIPURAM, ALANGODE P.O.,

¶18

VIA.EDAPPAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT -679 585.

¶19

SMT. C.VALSALA, ASSISTANT TEACHER, K.V.U.P.SCHOOL, KAKKADIPURAM, ALANGODE P.O., VIA.EDAPPAL,

¶20

MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 585.

¶21

W.A. No. 909/2016 : 2 :

¶22

SMT. M.RESMI, W/O.K.PRASAD L.P.S.A, K.V.U.P.SCHOOL, KAKKADIPURAM, ALANGODE P.O., VIA.EDAPPAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT -679 585.

¶23

SMT. P.NAJMA U.P.S.A, K.V.U.P.SCHOOL, KAKKADIPURAM, ALANGODE P.O., VIA.EDAPPAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT -679 585.

¶24

R BY SRI.BOBBYMATHEW KOOTHATTUKULAM R BY SRI. SOJAN JACOB, GOVERNMENT PLEADER R BY SRI.SUDHEESH.A.

¶25

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

ANTONY DOMINIC & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ.

¶27

¶28

W.A. No. 909 of 2016

¶29

-----------------------------------------Dated this the 23^rd day of May, 2016.

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

Antony Dominic, J.

¶32

Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents and the learned counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent Manager. In the nature of the order that we propose to pass, it is not necessary to issue notice to the party respondents.

¶33

The appellant filed W.P.(C) No. 6244 of 2008 mainly aggrieved by Exts.P10, P12, P14 and P15. By the impugned judgment, the learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition quashing Exts.P14 and P15 and directed re-consideration of Ext.P13 revision filed by the appellant before the first respondent challenging Ext.P12 order passed by the first appellate authority, DEO, confirming Ext.P10 order of punishment and also ordering recovery from the appellant. It is this judgment which is challenged before us.

¶34

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that, the appellant

¶35

W.A No.909/2016 -2-

¶36

was the Headmistress of K.V.U.P School managed by the fifth respondent. During the academic year 2004-2005, the inspection conducted by the Super Check Cell found that 81 bogus admissions were made in the school and the students were removed. As a consequence thereof, there was a revision in the staff strength which resulted in reduction of two teachers. This led to the proceedings against the appellant, who was the Headmistress of the school at the relevant point of time. The proceedings culminated in Ext.P5, whereby she was proposed to be reverted to the lower post. She filed an appeal before the DEO, which resulted in Ext.P10 order confirming the reversion and also ordering recovering of the loss from the appellant. This was confirmed by the DPI and the Government by Ext.P12 and P14 orders. Consequently, she was issued with Ext.P15 notice calling upon her to remit ` 44,243. It was in these circumstances, the writ petition was filed, which was disposed of in the manner indicated above.

¶37

The grievance now raised by the appellant is a narrow one. According to the learned Senior Counsel, all though in the judgment under appeal Exts.P5, P14 and P15 have been quashed and the

¶38

W.A No.909/2016 -3-

¶39

learned single Judge has directed re-consideration of Exts.P13 revision filed by the appellant challenging Ext.P12, since Ext.P12 order of the first appellate authority has not been quashed, she has now been called upon to remit the loss, which was ordered to be recovered from her as per Ext.P12. It is stated that in Ext.P10 order imposing punishment apart from ordering reversion, there was no order for recovery of any loss. It is also stated that in the appeal filed by the appellant, the DEO not only confirmed the punishment of reversion, but also ordered recovery of monetary loss. This, according to the learned counsel, was done without complying with the procedure as laid down in the second proviso to Rule 88(2) of Chapter XIVA KER.

¶40

Having considered the submissions made at the Bar, we are inclined to think that since the learned single Judge has ordered reconsideration of Ext.P13 revision filed against the appellate authority's order namely Ext.P12, the appellate authority can certainly go into the correctness of the contentions raised by the learned counsel as well. Therefore, we dispose of this appeal clarifying that the propriety and the legality of the recovery ordered by the appellate authority as per Ext.P12, will also be gone into while Ext.P13 revision is considered in

¶41

W.A No.909/2016

¶42

-4-

¶43

compliance with the direction of the learned single Judge. Since the matter is ordered to be reconsidered, we order that the recovery, if any, from the appellant pursuant to Ext.P12 will be kept in abeyance until Ext.P13 revision is considered and orders are passed by the first respondent.

¶44

With the above observations, the writ appeal is disposed of. The appellant shall produce a copy of this judgment before the concerned authorities for information and compliance.

¶45

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.

¶46

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.

¶47

¶48

W.A No.909/2016 -5-

U.Padmini v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

U.Padmini 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

E.Ummer Bava Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kozhikode

E. Ummer Bava Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax

D.Ajithkumar Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs G.Joseph

Royal Impex Vs the State of Kerala

Jyothikumar G.D. Vs Thomas T. George