2025:KER:27279 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 26228 OF 2023 PETITIONER: P.S. MANI, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O SIVARAMAN, MANAGER, V.M.L.P. SCHOOL, PALAKKAPOTTA, AYILOOR P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN – 678510. BY ADVS. GEORGE ABRAHAM JOBY D JOSEPH MARY CATHERINE PRIYANKA P.S. RESPONDENTS: 1 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695014. 2 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOLLANGODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN – 678072. 3 ANITHA.C, HEADMISTRESS-IN-CHARGE, V.M.L.P. SCHOOL, PALAKKAPOTTA, AYILOOR P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN – 678510. 4 A. ABOOBACKER JOINT DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695014. W.P.(C)No.26228 OF 2023 2 2025:KER:27279 BY ADVS. V.A MUHAMMED M.SAJJAD(K/335/1997) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)No.26228 OF 2023 3 2025:KER:27279 JUDGMENT The petitioner, who is the Manager of an L.P.Shcool has filed the captioned writ petition pointing out that the 3rd respondent herein, who was only appointed as ‘Headmistress-in-charge’ as evidenced at Ext.P1, was found to be involved in various irregularities. The irregularities were essentially in the nature of affixing the signature of the petitioner – the Manager in the service book of various teachers who were working in the school. Therefore, the petitioner sought to be issue Ext.P5 ‘show cause notice’ dated 05.03.2020 to the 3rd respondent herein, informing him of the irregularities pointed out as above and directing him to show cause within a period of seven days. The 3rd respondent in reply submitted Ext.P6 essentially admitting the allegations against them. In such circumstances, the petitioner submitted an application before the Additional Director of General Education pointing out the afore allegations as also certain supplementary allegations and seeking vigilance enquiry in the matter. The application at W.P.(C)No.26228 OF 2023 4 2025:KER:27279 Ext.P7 was directed to be considered and disposed of as per Ext.8 judgment in W.P.(C)No.15682 of 2022 of this Court. The Additional Director of General Education on the basis of the afore, heard the petitioner as well as the Assistant Educational Officer and found it necessary to appoint an officer for the purpose of conducting an enquiry. The enquiry was conducted as evidenced by Ext.P11 notice. The petitioner sates that the report of the enquiry officer was never served on the petitioner and instead Ext.P12 order came to be issued by the Director of General Education, finding that the petitioner is only to be ‘warned’. Certain other supplementary directions are also issued in Ext.P12. As directed in Ext.P12, the AEO by Ext.P13 issued the orders of warning on the petitioner. 2. It is challenging Exts.P12 and P13 issued as above that the petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition. 3. I have heard Dr.George Abraham, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Smt.Jenzia, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent herein and W.P.(C)No.26228 OF 2023 5 2025:KER:27279 Sri.T.Jayan, the learned Government Pleader. 4. The learned counsel, Sri.Dr.George on behalf of the petitioner would contend that the imposition of penalty as evidenced by Ext.P13 on the the basis of the direction contained in Ex.P12 is without justification and arbitrary for more than one reason. According to him, first of all the enquiry report was never served on the petitioner. Secondly, he would contend that the procedure laid down by this Court with respect to conduct of disciplinary proceedings in Manager v. State of Kerala and Others [2012 (2) KLT 338] have not been followed. Smt.Jenzia, on the other hand would contend that the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner would have no application to the facts and figures of the case, insofar as right from the beginning itself, the so called disciplinary proceedings were without following the procedure prescribed under Rule 75. 5. I have considered the rival submissions as well as the connected records. W.P.(C)No.26228 OF 2023 6 2025:KER:27279 6. This Court notices that with reference to the provisions of Rule 75 of KER, it was for the Manager to have issued a ‘memo of charges’. Dr.George, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Ext.P7 is once such memo of charges and hence the subsequent procedure by which the matter was referred to the higher authority is in tune with the statute. However, I notice that Ext.P5 issued by the petitioner – the Manager - is only a ’show cause notice’ as noticed earlier and cannot be considered to be a ‘memo of charges’. When that be so, presuming that in Ext.P6, 3rd respondent has admitted the allegations against him, that by itself will not entitle the petitioner - Manager to proceed on the basis of the procedure prescribed under Rule 75. To that extent, the contention raised by a counsel for the 3rd respondent is only to be accepted. 7. Therefore, though the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the procedure as evidenced by Ext.P13 is incorrect and arbitrary, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for the reliefs, W.P.(C)No.26228 OF 2023 7 2025:KER:27279 insofar Ext.P5 is not a memo of charges, with reference to the provisions of Rule 75 of the rules. 8. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for any of the reliefs as prayed in this writ petition. Resultantly, this writ petition would stand dismissed. Sd/- HARISANKAR V. MENON JUDGE ANA W.P.(C)No.26228 OF 2023 8 2025:KER:27279 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26228/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 12/9/2007 APPOINTING THE 3RD RESPONDENT AS HEADMISTRESS-IN-CHARGE Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. F-1910/13/L.DIS DATED 29/11/2013 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION, NO.F/550/2021 DATED 9/3/2021 OBTAINED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF APPROVED SENIORITY LIST DATED 1/7/2011 OF THE SCHOOL Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE MEMO DATED 5/3/2020 ISSUED BY THE MANAGER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 16/3/2020 RESPONDENT Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 23/3/2021 Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO. 15682/2021 DATED 7/7/2022 Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTE DATED 22/9/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P10 A COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.G/11076/ 2022/D.G.E DATED 28/12/2022 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. RA1/11076/ 2022/D.G.E DATED 20/1/2023 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT W.P.(C)No.26228 OF 2023 9 2025:KER:27279 Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.G/11076/2022/D.G.E DATED 11/5/2023 Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.F/1411/2021 DATED 25/5/2023 RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R-3(a) True copy of representation submitted before the ‘Balavakasha Commisison’ dated 24.09.2021 Exhibit R-3(b) True copy of Order No. C.R.M.P No.9479/9/C2/2021/KeSCPCR dated 25.11.2021 Exhibit R-3(c) True copy of letter dated 17.03.2021 Exhibit R-3(d) True copy of Counter affidavit filed by this Respondent in WP(C) No. 3158/2023 presented on 19.09.2023 (without exhibits)