VALSALA BAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was the Principal of a Higher Secondary School before she retired from service on 31.5.2005. Ext. P1 charge memo was served on her by the fourth respondent Deputy Director of Education, Pathanamthitta. This was followed by Ext.P2 order dated 27.5.2005 passed by the second respondent placing the petitioner under suspension. Petitioner retired from service on 31.5.2005 while under suspension.

(2.) Ext.P2 order of suspension was challenged by the petitioner before this Court and as per Ext.P3 judgment dated 1.6.2005 this Court directed the Government to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner against Ext.P2. Ext.P4 is the order passed by the Government disposing of the appeal as per G.O dated 12.7.2005. According to the Government the appeal was liable to be rejected. However it is to be noted that there is no reference to the main contention taken by the petitioner that neither the fourth respondent nor the second respondent has jurisdiction to proceed against the Principal of a Higher Secondary School in disciplinary action. Ext.P4 order rests on findings without taking note of the main contention raised by the petitioner.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had taken up the specific contention that she was not guilty of the allegations made against her. She had also been contending that the third respondent was the competent authority to issue memo of charges or to place her under suspension even if it is assumed for argument sake that disciplinary proceedings are warranted against the petitioner.