Dismissed

A.Kunhiraman v. the Asst.Educational Officer

Kerala HC13 Oct 2022WA/1660/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ appeal filed by a retired headmaster aggrieved by the denial of salary benefits for suspension periods. Upholding the Single Judge, the court noted substantial justice was already served through various administrative and judicial orders reinstating the appellant and reducing punishment.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Appeal is dismissed as the judgment of the learned Single Judge stands upheld with no ground to interfere.

A.Kunhiraman Vs the Asst.Educational Officer — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 21ST ASWINA, 1944

¶7

WA NO. 1660 OF 2008

¶8

WPC 14913/2008 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶9

APPELLANT/S:

¶10

A.KUNHIRAMAN,CHERUMOTH L.P.SCHOOL, 'ASARINTAVIDE' HOUSE,, P.O.CHERUMOTH, VALAYAM - VIA, KOZHIKODE, DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV C.R.SIVAKUMAR

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

1 THE ASST.EDUCATIONAL OFFICER NADAPURAM, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE.

¶14

2 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

3 V.ABDULLA FORMERLY WORKING AS ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, NADAPURAM, VALLOT HOUSE, KADAMERY P.O., ILLAYIDOM, VILLYAPILLY VIA, KOZHIKODE - PIN - 673 502.

¶16

4 THE MANAGER CHERUMOTH L.P.SCHOOL CHERUMOTH, VALAYA - VIA, KOZHIKODE, DISTRICT.

¶17

5 SULAIHA C.K. WORKING AS MANAGER CHERUMOTH L.P.SCHOOL, CHERUMOTH, VALAYAM - VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶18

6 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION KOZHIKODE.

¶19

WA 1660/2008

¶20

-2-

¶21

7 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶22

OTHER PRESENT:

¶23

Sri.C.R Sivakumar for respondent

¶24

GP, SHRI P M SHAMEER

¶25

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WA 1660/2008

-3-

S.V.BHATTI

& BASANT BALAJI, JJ.

¶30

¶31

W.A. NO. 1660 OF 2008

¶32

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

(Dated this the 13^th day of October 2022)

¶35

Basant Balaji J.,

¶36

The Writ Appeal was dismissed for default on

¶37

20.3.2019 for the reason that notice before admission was

¶38

ordered on 6.3.1999 and no process charge was remitted by the appellant to complete the service of notice to respondent Nos.3 to 5. There was no appearance for the appellant as well and hence, this court dismissed the appeal for non prosecution.

¶39

The appellant thereafter filed MJC No.92 of 2020

¶40

with a petition to condone the delay of 425 days in filing

¶41

WA 1660/2008 -4-

¶42

the MJC. Vide separate order in CMA No.2 of 2020 in

¶43

MJC No.92 of 2020, we have condoned the delay and took the MJC for hearing. On the very same day with the consent of the counsel for the appellant, we have heard the Writ Appeal.

¶44

This appeal is filed aggrieved by judgment in W.P. (C) No.14913 of 2018 whereby the Writ Petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. The Writ Petition was filed for quashing Exts.P15, P17, P17(a) and P20 proceedings and also for a direction commanding respondent Nos.2,4,6 and 7 to disburse all benefits of service due to the petitioner as if he had continued in service as Headmaster ignoring

¶45

the suspension order.

¶46

The appellant is a retired Headmaster of a LP school. He submitted application for granting commuted

¶47

WA 1660/2008

¶48

-5-

¶49

leave for the period 29.4.2005 to 15.6.2005. The Assistant Education Officer (AEO), Nadapuram issued a show cause notice to the appellant to show cause why the leave application should not be rejected. The AEO, through order 9.6.2005 (Ext.P3), held that the acts of the appellant amounted to serious misconduct and taking a lenient view the mater was closed imposing censure. On receipt of Ext. P3, the appellant submitted a representation to the AEO, wherein certain remarks were made against the AEO in passing Ext.P3 order. The AEO on receipt of the above, issued a notice to the appellant on 3.8.2005 directing him to show cause why action should not be taken against him under Rule 67 of Chapter XIVA of KER. The Manager of the school placed the appellant under suspension which was challenged before the Secretary, Department of General

¶50

WA 1660/2008

¶51

-6-

¶52

Education. He also filed a revision before the government under Rule 92 of chapter XIVA of KER.

¶53

This court by judgment dated 8.2.2006 in WP(C) No. 1005 of 2006 directed the State to dispose of the revision on merits and pass orders in accordance with law. The Government as per order in G.O.(Rt) No.2075/06/GE dated 22.5.2006 held that the appellant need not be kept

¶54

under continuous suspension and did not call for a major punishment. The Government also directed the Manager to reinstate the appellant as headmaster with immediate effect pending finalisation of disciplinary proceedings. The Deputy Director of Education (Kozhikode) was directed to conduct a detailed enquiry on the allegations made against the appellant/petitioner. The Deputy Director of Education

¶55

(Kozhikode) thereafter passed an order dated 28.9.2006 in

¶56

WA 1660/2008

¶57

-7-

¶58

which it was held that the charges levelled against the appellant did not warrant imposition of a major punishment and directed reinstatement with immediate effect. The Manager was directed to impose a minor punishment if any as per the provisions in sub rule 1 to 3 of Rule 65 Chapter XIV A KER. Impugning the order of the Deputy Director of Education, an appeal was filed before the Director of Public Administration, Thiruvananthapuram.

¶59

By order dated 15.10.2006, the Manager reinstated

¶60

the appellant as Headmaster and imposed a punishment of barring two increments. The appellant challenged the order of the Manager before the Director of Public Instruction. The additional Director Public Instruction (General) disposed of the appeal and held that barring of two increments with cumulative effect was modified as one of

¶61

WA 1660/2008

¶62

barring of two increments as temporary for one year. It was

¶63

also clarified that the appellant shall be treated as reinstated

¶64

in service with effect from the date of Government Order 22.5.2006 and the salary for the period from 22.5.2006 to

¶65

the date of actual reinstatement will be fixed as the liability of the Manager. A further revision was filed by the

¶66

appellant against the order mentioned above by preferring a revision.

¶67

The government by order 31.1.2008, held as

¶68

follows:

¶69

“The matter has been examined in detail. Since the incumbent has not worked during the period from 22.5.2006 to 4.10.2006. By applying the principle of no work no pay he is not eligible for getting the period treated as duty with salary. In the circumstances that period of absence from 22.5.2006 to 4.10.2006 shall be converted in to leave of any kind due and admissible. And the period of suspension that is from 2.1.2006 to 21.5.2006 may also be regularized as eligible leave/leave without allowance provided the retired officer desires so.

¶70

Sri.Kunhiraman was not exonerated from guilt by any of the Educational Officers. But by taking a lenient view as the Headmaster has already retired from service, the punishment awarded by the Director of Public

¶71

WA 1660/2008

¶72

-9-

¶73

Instruction may be further reduced. He may be awarded with censure as provided under Chapter XIV A. Rule 65,"

¶74

The appellant challenged the order of the

¶75

Government in revision before the learned Single Judge.

¶76

The learned Single Judge held that on going through the various judgment passed by this court in earlier Writ Petitions filed by the appellant effective and impartial opportunities were given to the appellant to put forward his grievance. The learned Single Judge also found that the opportunities given to the appellant were misused by him by filing Writ Petitions one after one. For the above reason, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition as one lacking merit.

¶77

We have gone through the judgment of the learned

¶78

Single Judge and we are of the considered opinion that on

¶79

various levels orders were passed and suspension was

¶80

WA 1660/2008

¶81

cancelled and was directed to be reinstated. The barring of

¶82

increment on a cumulative basis was also set aside and it

¶83

was clarified that barring of two increments shall be only for a year. Thus, it can be seen that substantial justice has been given to him by the various orders passed by the authorities as well as by this court. We do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge and therefore the Writ Appeal stands dismissed.

¶84

¶85

S.V.BHATTI, JUDGE

¶86

SD BASANT BALAJI, JUDGE

¶87

dl/downloads

A.Kunhiraman v. the Asst.Educational Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Kunhiraman v. the Asst.Educational Officer

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

State of Kerala Vs K a Jose, Kollamkulam Agencies Pvt. Ltd.

State of Kerala Vs K a Jose, Kollamkulam Agencies Pvt. Ltd.

State of Kerala Vs K a Jose, Kollamkulam Agencies Pvt. Ltd.

Hill Wood Furniture P Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax

Hillwood Furniture Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Incometax

Hillwood Furniture Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax