KURIEN Vs. A E G KOLENCHERRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is directed against the judgment of our learned brother Sivaraman Nair, J , dated 18th January 1984 in O.P. No. 419 of 1984-J. The, appellant was the petitioner in the writ petition which was one for quashing Ext. P8 order passed by the first respondent, Assistant Educational Officer, Kolencherry The appellant petitioner had passed an order suspending the 2nd respondent from the post of Headmaster. Inasmuch as the period of suspension went beyond 15 days, in conformity with the requirements of R.67(8) of Chap.14A of the Kerala Education Rules, the matter was forwarded to the first respondent for his approval. The first respondent sent for the 2nd respondent and got his explanation and thereafter passed Ext. P8 order taking the view that no grounds were made out for the suspension of the 2nd respondent. Accordingly, the first respondent declined to give the. approval sought for by the appellant petitioner. It is challenging the correctness of this order, Ext. P8, that the writ petition was filed; and the appeal against the dismissal of the writ petition has been taken.

(2.) The main argument advanced by Shri S. Sankarasubban, the counsel for the appellant petitioner, is that the first respondent acted in excess of the jurisdiction in conducting an enquiry, which is beyond the scope of the provisions contained in R.67(8) of Chap.14A of the Kerala Education Rules, From the wordings in R.67(8) itself it could be seen that some sort of investigation is contemplated by the controlling authority, inasmuch as it provides inter alia ''the Deputy Director (Education) if the suspension is in respect of Headmaster of a secondary school or training school and the Educational Officer in other cases shall thereupon make a preliminary investigation into the grounds, of suspension. If on such investigations the authority is satisfied that there was no valid grounds for the suspension he may direct the Manager to reinstate the teacher with effect from the date of suspension, and thereupon the teacher shall forthwith be reinstated by the Manager". As a matter of fact it is only after the preliminary investigation the controlling officer can take a decision as to whether the approval sought for has to be given or not. And to say that no enquiry or investigator should be conducted or made by the controlling officer would virtually mean that the provision contained in the sub-rule is made redundant.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner appellant relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Sreedharan v. State ( 1977 KLT 222 ). We have gone through the facts of the case and the observations made therein. In our view, the principle laid down in that case has absolutely no application to the facts of the present case. That was a case in which a detailed investigation calling upon the parties to produce witnesses was made by the officer, concerned. In this case, no such thing has happened. All that appears to have been done is that the first respondent called the 2nd respondent and enquired of him the circumstances which led to the passing of the order of suspension, and on finding that there were no grounds on the basis of the preliminary investigation, passed Ext. P8 order declining approval of the action taken by the appellant petitioner.