P. Radhakrishnan Kurup vs Deputy Director of Education and Others

K.T. Sankaran, J.—The petitioner had filed Writ Petitions earlier in point of time. There were several orders also. But he has conveniently omitted to mention all the relevant details in the Writ Petition. Normally, when suppression of material facts is detected, the Writ Petition can be dismissed on that short ground. However, in the interests of justice, I do not think that the Writ Petition need be dismissed on that ground.

The petitioner was working as Headmaster in Narikkatteri L.V.L.P. School, Kakkattil via., Kozhikode. In 2007, on the ground that he had affixed a fake signature, punishment was imposed on him barring one annual increment with cumulative effect. Even thereafter, the allegation is that he indulged in similar activities. It would appear that the Manager did not place him under suspension originally. On 7.12.2009, as per Exhibit P15 order, the Assistant Educational Officer exercised the power u/s 12A of the Kerala Education Act and the petitioner was demoted for a period of two years from 7.1.2009, under Rule 65(iv)(2) of Chapter XIVA of KER. It would appear that based on that order, the Manager placed the petitioner under suspension as per the order dated 13.5.2010. It would appear that the petitioner challenged that order passed by the Manager before the Government in revision dated 18.6.2010. The petitioner filed W.P.(C). No. 22711 of 2010 complaining that the revision was not disposed of. This Court disposed of W.P.(C). No. 22711 of 2010 by the judgment dated 22nd July, 2010 directing the Government to dispose of the revision filed by the petitioner, expeditiously. A copy of the judgment in W.P.(C). No. 22711 of 2010 was made available before me by the learned Government Pleader. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the said revision, which was directed to be disposed of as per the judgment in W.P.(C). No. 22711 of 2010, is pending before the Government.

While so, the petitioner challenged Exhibit P15 order dated 7.12.2009 passed by the Assistant Educational Officer in Exhibit P16 appeal before the Deputy Director. The Deputy Director passed Exhibit P19 order dated 11.3.2010. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in the appeal filed by the petitioner, the punishment imposed on the petitioner by the Assistant Educational Officer was enhanced by the Deputy Director, without even issuing a notice to the petitioner. The petitioner challenged Exhibit P19 order in Exhibit P20 appeal before the Director of Public Instruction. The Director of Public Instruction passed Exhibit P21 order dated 21.9.2010. That order was challenged by the petitioner in revision (Exhibit P22 dated 1.10.2010) before the Government. It is submitted that Exhibit P22 revision is pending before the Government.

The learned Government Pleader submitted that Exhibit P22 revision was received by the Government on 20.10.2010.

The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the following:

(i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Exts.P15, P19 and P21 orders of the 2nd, 1st and 4th respondents respectively;

(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to sanction and disburse the salary due to the petitioner, with effect from December 2009 onwards, forthwith;

and

(iii) issue such other writ, order or direction which may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the time being, the petitioner would be satisfied, if a direction is issued to the Government to dispose of Exhibit P22 revision. The learned Government Pleader pointed out that another revision filed by the petitioner before the Government, which was directed to be disposed of a per the judgment in W.P. (C). No. 22711 of 2010, is pending before the Government and if both these revisions are disposed of separately, it is likely that conflicting decisions may occur. It is, therefore, submitted that there may be a direction to dispose of both the aforesaid revisions together.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows:

(a) The fifth respondent shall consider and dispose of Exhibit P22 revision dated 1st October, 2010 filed by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the Manager.

(b) The fifth respondent shall consider Exhibit P22 revision along with the revision filed by him before the Government and which was directed to be disposed of by the Government as per the judgment in W.P.(C). No. 22711 of 2010 and dispose of both these revisions together.

(c) The petitioner shall produce a copy of the revision filed by him before the Government earlier in point of time, before the fifth respondent to facilitate a joint consideration of both the revisions.

(d) The petitioner shall produce a copy of the Writ Petition and certified copy of the judgment before the fifth respondent.

(e) The petitioner shall send a copy of the judgment and a copy of the Writ Petition to the third respondent Manager by registered post and he shall produce proof of the same before the fifth respondent.

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.