SAILAJA MADHUVANATH Vs. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed challenging an order of suspension issued on the petitioner, who is the Headmistress of an aided school by the Assistant Educational Officer, on the ground that there was delay in processing the salary bill of a teacher as directed by this Court. It is stated that Ext.P1 order of suspension is being issued by the AEO without even informing the Manager, on the ground that the petitioner had been appointed by the Manager and had delayed the implementation of judgment of this Court and leading to contempt of court case. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the suspension order is absolutely unsustainable and that there is absolutely no need to suspend the petitioner, since the amounts have already been disbursed to the claimant and the contempt of court case which was initiated against the petitioner also stands closed by this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision of this Court in Philomina Dominic v. P.C. Babu and Others [2011 KHC 41] to contend that the gravity of the charges are also to be considered while passing an order of suspension.

(2.) The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the order of suspension had been issued against the petitioner, since the petitioner had been instrumental in delaying the payment of salary to Smt.T.B.Bijisha, Junior language teacher as per the directions of this Court. It is stated that the petitioner was personally responsible for the delay caused which lead to the initiation of a contempt of court case against the petitioner as well as the Manager. It is further stated that the Manager has also been directed to take disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and a memo of charges has been issued to the petitioner by the Manager.

(3.) Having considered the contentions advanced on either side, I am of the opinion that the question whether an order of suspension was properly issued to the petitioner by the AEO is liable to be considered by the Educational authorities. The power of the AEO to issue an order of suspension without informing the Manager as well as the necessity to retain the petitioner under suspension in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, are the matters which are to be considered by the educational authorities concerned. In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that it is for the Higher authorities in the Educational Department to consider whether the issue of suspension of the petitioner is justified in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. The petitioner has already approached the Deputy Director of Education by Ext.P18 representation pointing out her grievance in the matter.