MANAGER L P S KOOVALLOOR Vs. MATHEW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner before us if the manager of an aided Lower Primary School at Koovalloor in moovattupuzha educational district. The 1st respondent herein was the headmaster of the said school. On 26 81964 the writ petitioner preferred a complaint against the Headmaster before the police alleging that the latter bad committed misappropriation of certain food articles supplied to the school by the Care Organisation. Pursuant thereto C. C. 196 of 1965 of the Judicial I Class magistrate's Court, Moovattupuzha was registered against the 1st respondent. On the ground of the 1st respondent being involved in that criminal case, the 1st respondent was placed under suspension with effect from 112 1964. The magistrate's Court originally acquitted the 1st respondent, but on revision filed by the manager to this Court-Crl. R. P. 131 of 1967 the order of acquittal was set aside and the case was remanded for retrial. Thereafter it was renumbered as C. C. No. 18 of 1968 in the same Magistrate's Court. Later by judgment dated 4 81971 the 1st respondent was convicted by the Magistrate and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Based on the said conviction of the 1st respondent by the criminal court the manager issued to him the notice Ext. P-1 dated 4th November, 1971 calling upon the 1st respondent to show cause why he should not be removed from service under R. 77a of Chapter xiv (A) of the Kerala Education Rules. In the reply sent thereto by the 1st respondent as per Ext. R-2 he informed the manager that he had preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court against the judgment of the Magistrate's Court and requested that the proposed action for his removal from service should be kept in abeyance till the appeal was heard and decided. The manager however did not accede to that request, but instead he moved the District Educational officer for the grant of sanction for the removal of the Headmaster from the service of the school under R. 77a. The District Educational Officer granted that request as per his proceedings evidenced by Ext. P-2 dated 3rd January, 1972. On the strength of the said sanction granted by the District Educational officer, the petitioner passed orders removing the 1st respondent from the post of Headmaster in the school. Ext. P-3 is a copy of that order. Shortly thereafter the Sessions Court as per its judgment Ext. R-1 dated 15-3-1973 allowed the appeal filed by the Headmaster, set aside the conviction and acquitted him of the charges.

(2.) THEREAFTER the 1st respondent seems to have approached the District Educational Officer with a request that orders may be passed for his reinstatement as Headmaster of the school in view of his having been acquitted by the appellate court. The District Educational Officer by his order evidenced by Ext. P-4 dated 29-3-1974 directed the manager to reinstate the 1st respondent in the post of Headmaster. The manager thereupon instituted O. P. No. 2332 of 1974 before this Court seeking to quash Ext. P-4. When that writ petition came up for hearing it was submitted before this Court on behalf of the 1st respondent herein, who was the 1st respondent in that writ proceedings also, that he had already filed a revision petition before the State Government against the order Ext. P-3 passed by the manager removing him from service and that hence he had no objection to Ext. P-4 being set aside by this Court. The original Petition was allowed on that limited ground, obviously relegating the parties to get the matter decided by the State Government in exercise of its revisional power under R. 92 of Chapter XIV (A) of the Kerala Education Rules. Subsequently the State Government passed the order Ext. P-6 dated 26-3-1976 allowing the revision petition filed by the Headmaster and directing the manager to reinstate him in service as Headmaster of the same school with immediate effect. A further direction was also given in Ext. P-6 that the period during which the 1st respondent was out of service would be treated as eligible leave. The challenge in this writ petition instituted by the manager is against the said order (Ext. P-6) passed by the State Government.

(3.) FURTHER , under the scheme of the rules contained in chapter XIV (A) of the Kerala Education Rules, any order of removal of a teacher passed by the manager is subject to the revisional jurisdiction of the state Government under R. 92 of the said Chapter and the 1st respondent having filed a revision petition against the order Ext. P-3 and bis conviction on the criminal charge having been set aside by the Sessions Court before the revision petition came up for disposal by the Government, it was perfectly open to the government to take note of the said event that had happened subsequent to the passing of the order by the manager in deciding the revision petition. In this view also it must be held that the Government was perfectly justified in allowing the revision petition, setting aside the order Ext. P-3 and directing the reinstatement of the Ist respondent as Headmaster of the school. As already pointed out, the fact that the manager had in the meantime appointed a substitute in the vacancy caused on account of the removal of the 1st respondent from service was of no moment at all, since any such appointment could be only provisional in its nature both on the ground that an appeal was pending against the order of conviction and also that the order Ext. P-3 passed by the manager was itself liable to be revised by the State Government under r. 92. 5. It follows from the foregoing discussion that there are absolutely no grounds justifying any interference by this Court with the order Ext. P-6 passed by the State Government. The Original Petition accordingly fails and is dismissed with costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 200/ -. Dismissed. . .