U. PADMINI, HEADMISTRESS Vs. STATE OF KERALA,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CASE of the petitioner in brief is as follows:

(2.) PETITIONER preferred Ext.P3 revision before the first respondent supported by Ext.P5 argument note. Ext.P6 is the order passed by the first respondent dismissing the revision. Petitioner challenges Exts.P2 and P6 orders.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is a case where petitioner should not be blamed. He would submit that attendance of students are recorded by the teachers of the concerned standard and class teacher of standard I is the wife of the manager. He would further point out that attendance was physically verified by the third respondent on 18 -10 -2004 and 02 -11 -2004. It is stated at any rate that there is no reason for putting the entire blame for issuance of the staff fixation order on the petitioner. Individual cases of the pupils were not examined, it is stated. It is stated that according to Super check cell attendance was only 535 while the attendance recorded by the third respondent was 653. It is submitted that out of the 81 students, even now many are studying and one language teacher is also continuing. It is further pointed out that enquiry is also held under Rule 75 and punishment is imposed by the manager based on the order of the DPI.