RADHAMMA Vs. THULASI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first among these two Writ Appeals is by the Manager of an aided school, the second respondent in the Original Petition. The second is by a teacher who might be affected by the implementation of the judgment in that Original Petition.

(2.) The Writ Petitioner, the first respondent in the Writ Appeals, while working as Headmistress was placed under suspension on 2.9.02, on the basis of certain allegations as contained in Ext.Pl. This suspension was allowed to be continued beyond 15 days as enjoined in Rule 67 Chap.XIV-A KER, as per Ext.P4 order of the Deputy Director, the first respondent in the Writ Petition. Challenging the suspension order as well as Ext.P4 the writ petitioner approached earlier, in O.P.No. 34944/02, which resulted in Ext.P5 judgment. In Ext.PS, This court directed expedite completion of the formal enquiry and finalisation of the disciplinary proceedings. As the incumbent was a Headmistress the formal enquiry in a disciplinary proceedings as enjoined in Rule 75 Chap. XIV-A KER had to be conducted by the Deputy Director. The Deputy Director, said to be in compliance with Ext.P5, conducted an enquiry in a manner as chosen by him and drew up Ext.P6 proceedings. Taking Ext.P6 as a report of enquiry, the appellant/Manager proposed a punishment of reduction to the lower rank. Ext.P7 show cause notice was issued on the writ petitioner with this proposal. When the show cause notice was served, the writ petitioner approached This court contending that in order to serve a show cause, not only there was no formal enquiry at all nor an enquiry report. There was no proper compliance of Ext.P5, she contended. During the pendency of the said Original Petition, Ext.P9 final order in the disciplinary action was passed. Thereupon the Writ Petition was amended incorporating challenge against Ext.P9 as well.

(3.) The learned single Judge considered the case, heard the parties on either side in the Writ Petition and quashed Ext.P6 proceedings of the Deputy Director and Ext.P9 order of the Manager and directed reinstatement of the teacher as principal. In the meantime, on the basis of Ext.P9 order, the writ petitioner had already joined duty in the reverted post. In W.A. No. 570/06, the manager contends that merely because the Deputy Director had misconducted himself in holding an enquiry as directed in Ext.P5, the disciplinary proceedings shall not come to an end and the manager shall not be found fault with.