G. THOMAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is by the Manager, Pullamcode Upper Primary School, Perumanoor, Kottarakkara District, against the judgment of a learned Judge of this Court who dismissed the appellant's writ petition to quash Ext. P8 revisional order of the Government confirming' Ext. P5 order of the Assistant Educational Officer. The appellant-Manager had instituted certain disciplinary proceedings against the 4th respondent, a teacher in his educational institution. By a memo of charge (Ext. PI) together with the statement of allegations, the 4th respondent was asked to show cause against the disciplinary action proposed to be taken against him. To the charge memo the 4th respondent submitted a statement of defence dated 26-4-1975. This was found to be unsatisfactory. By Ext. P2 memo dated 2-6-1975 the 4th respondent was informed that it was proposed to withhold three increments permanently. To this notice, Ext. P3 explanation was submitted by the 4th respondent. It was stated in paragraph 15 that the 4th respondent was convinced that no purpose will be served by any hearing afforded to him, that the appellant was biased, that he did not know English, and that the memo of charge itself in English was caused to be written by some other. Then followed Ext. P4 proceedings of the Manager by which the proposed penalty was inflicted. The proceedings were submitted to the Assistant Educational Officer for ratification of the punishment. By Ext. P5 the Assistant Educational Officer rejected the request for ratification on the ground that the Manager had not observed the principles of natural justice. Against this order of the Assistant Educational Officer, the appellant preferred a revision to the Government (Ext. P7). That was dismissed by a very laconicorder of the Government (Ext. P8) that the revision did not have any merit. Nothing else was stated at Ext. P8.

(2.) The appellant's grievance is that in passing the revisional order Government had not applied its mind to the facts and the circumstances of the case and the order cannot certainly be regarded as a speaking order and a proper exercise of the revisional power. More important, counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant had duly observed the principles of natural justice at the enquiry into the charges, that the 4th respondent had boycotted the enquiry and refused to co-operate with it stating that he saw no purpose in asking for any hearing or in appearing before the appellant. In these circumstances, it was the appellant's case that there was no violation at all of the principles of natural justice and the Assistant Educational Officer's order (Ext. P5) refusing to ratify the disciplinary action was unjustified and improper.

(3.) The learned Judge in the course of his judgment has made the rather strong observation that the disciplinary action against the 4th respondent was really to put him out of the way and to usher in the appellant's own relations, namely, his cousin-brother and his son.