P.C.RAMAKRISHNAN Vs. MANAGER NALLAMANDANCHELLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions arise out of the question regarding the rights of the petitioner(P.C.Ramakrishnan, Headmaster), who was suspended from service in terms of Ext.P1 order dated 16 -12 -2009. Hence, these writ petitions are decided by way of a common judgment.

(2.) In W.P.(C) No.14515/2012, petitioner seeks for reinstatement in service of the first respondent school on the basis of Ext.P10 order passed by the Government. Ext.P10 order came to be passed on the basis of the directions issued by this Court in a common judgment in W.P.(C) No.30352/2010 and W.P.(C) No.38523/2010.

(3.) The facts involved in this case will disclose that the petitioner was under suspension with effect from 16 -12 -2009. Preliminary investigation was conducted by the Assistant Educational Officer, Chittur and granted permission to continue the suspension beyond 15 days as per Rule 67(8) Chapter XIV A of KER. Subsequently, charges were framed against the petitioner. Explanation was sought for and a formal enquiry was conducted. Later, since there was no progress in the enquiry conducted by the Assistant Educational Officer, by order dated 16 -06 -2010, the Government directed the Deputy Director of Education, Palakkad to conduct a comprehensive enquiry. In the meantime, by virtue of a common judgment in W.P.(C) No.27422/2007 and W.P.(C) No.5072/2010 dated 23 -06 -2010, the Government conducted a hearing on 31 -08 -2010 and passed an order dated 20 -09 -2010 by issuing certain directions, which again came to be challenged by filing writ petitions. By Ext.P10 order, Government set aside the enquiry report of the Deputy Director of Education and the Manager was directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith after revoking the suspension. The Deputy Director of Education, Palakkad is also directed to conduct a detailed enquiry on the allegations raised against the Headmaster which led to his suspension. It is also observed that the Manager, on receipt of the enquiry report, is at liberty to proceed with the disciplinary action in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Rule 75 Chapter XIV A of KER.