High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
GEORGE JOSEPH, S/O. JOSEPH v. THE MANAGER, SACRED HEART HIGH SCHOOL - WP(C) No. 13579 of 2006(N)  RD-KL 4863 (7 March 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMWP(C) No. 13579 of 2006(N)
1. GEORGE JOSEPH, S/O. JOSEPH,
1. THE MANAGER, SACRED HEART HIGH SCHOOL
2. THE HEADMASTER, SACRED HEART HIGH
3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.GEORGE ABRAHAM
For Respondent :SRI.P.CHANDY JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
O R D E R
K.M.JOSEPH, J.W.P.(C).NOs.13579 & 29932 OF 2006
Dated this the 7th day of March, 2007
Since common questions arise in these writ petition, they are disposed of through this common judgment. Writ petition No.13579/06 is filed by the teacher. He is the first respondent in the other writ petition. The prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to reinstate the petitioner back into service and issue necessary orders to quash Ext.P6 to the extent it directs a fresh enquiry. There are other prayers also. The very same order namely Ext.P6 in the said writ petition is challenged by the writ petitioner in W.P.(C)No.29932/06, who is the manager of the school. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. Ext.P6 is produced as Ext.P12 in W.P.(C)No.29932/06. Manager challenges the order to the extent that there is a direction to reinstate the petitioner without prejudice to disciplinary action. According to the manager, the allegations raised against the WPC NOs.13579 & 29932 of 2006 2 teacher are very serious and therefore without conducting an enquiry ,as in fact ordered by the Government, direction to reinstate is insupportable. According to the teacher, the very direction to conduct a fresh enquiry is not sustainable. The statement in the impugned order that the manager was not permitted to cross examine is without any basis, he submits. He would submit that all the witnesses were from the management side and the petitioner has not even called any witness of his own to give evidence. It is stated that cross examination of ones' own witnesses is not permissible.
2. In the impugned order it is found that there is reference to an enquiry report which of course stood set aside earlier on consent as evident from Ext.P3 judgment. The finding is only that both enquiry reports are not reliable and evidence is not properly collected giving equal opportunities to both sides to examine and cross examine the witnesses and the office records did not reflect satisfactory picture and therefore disciplinary action cannot be initiated based on such report. On the basis of the direction WPC NOs.13579 & 29932 of 2006 3 re-enquiry is sought for.
3. I feel that the matter requires re-consideration both on the question as to whether there should be a fresh enquiry and also whether if it is found that a fresh enquiry is warranted, the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.13579/06 should be reinstated during the pendency of the fresh enquiry. Accordingly, Ext.P6 in W.P.(C)No.13579/06 and Ext. P12 in W.P.(C)No.29932/06 are quashed and the fifth respondent will consider the matter afresh in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners or their representatives. To facilitate an early disposal of the matter, petitioners or their representatives will be present before the fifth respondent at 11:00 a.m. on 26/03/2007. The fifth respondent shall proceed to hear the petitioners and take a decision in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of hearing. K.M.JOSEPH
JUDGEsv. WPC NOs.13579 & 29932 of 2006 4
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.