BALANAIULAN NAIR Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a Headmaster placed under suspension has approached this Court channeling Exts.P7 and P8. The facts of the case are as follows:

(2.) The petitioner is an aided school Headmaster. The 4th respondent is the Manager of the School. The Manager placed the petitioner under suspension as per Ext. P2 order. In terms of R.67(8) Chap.14A K.E.R. when the Manager placed the Headmaster of a U.P. School under suspension, the order has to be forwarded to the Educational Officer who shall make a preliminary investigation into the grounds of suspension. The 3rd respondent is the Educational Officer concerned. He conducted a preliminary investigation in terms of Rs.67(8) Chap.14A K.E.R. and passed Ext. P4 order permitted the Manager to keep the headmaster under suspension beyond 15 days and until finalisation of the disciplinary action initiated against him. The petitioner, adversely affected by Ext. P4 order and the consequent order continuing his suspension, viz., Ext. P5, filed an appeal before the District Educational Officer, Vatakara, the 2nd respondent, in terms of R.79 Chap.14A K.E.R. The said Rule enables filing of an appeal to the next higher authority who accorded sanction for continuance of suspension is subordinate. The 3rd respondent is immediately subordinate to the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the 2nd respondent is the appellate authority to whom the authority who accorded sanction for continuance of suspension is subordinate. The 3rd respondent is immediately subordinate to the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the 2nd respondent is the appellate authority in terms of Rs.79. That power is a statutory power conferred on the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent considered the appeal and set aside Ext. P4 order of the 3rd respondent permitting the Manager to continue the suspension beyond 15 days. That order is suo motu reviewed by the first respondent, the Deputy Director of Education. He has set aside Ext. P6 order of the District Educational Officer in Ext. P7. Consequent on Ext. P8 is that notice. It is in the above circumstances the petitioner has approached this Court challenging Exts.P7 & P8.

(3.) The petitioner contends that the first respondent, Deputy Director of Education does not have any power to suo motu review the orders contained in Ext. P6 order passed by the statutory authority, unless such a power is statutorily conferred on the Deputy Director, merely because he is a higher authority. Thus, the 1st respondent cannot modify or rescind or set aside Ext. P6, the petitioner contends. Therefore, Exts.P7 and P8 are bad.