MADHAVA MENON Vs. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
LAWS(KER)-1963-11-1
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on November 13,1963

MADHAVA MENON Appellant
VERSUS
ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

BOARD OF EDUCATION V. RICE [REFERRED TO]
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD V. ALRIDGE [REFERRED TO]
DHARANI MOHAN BARMAN V. STATE OF ASSAM [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)That the principles of natural justice had been transgressed in passing Exts. P. 3 and P. 7 orders, the first by the Assistant Educational Officer, the first respondent to this writ application, and the second, Ext. P. 7, by the appellate authority, the District Educational Officer, the second respondent to this writ application, is the complaint of the petitioner, who has been dealt with by these two officers. The facts of the case are as follows:
(2.)The petitioner was functioning as the Headmaster in the school, of which the third respondent is the Manager. The school is called Pathempad A. L. P. School. A notice was issued to the petitioner on 12-1-1959 to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against the petitioner for an alleged misconduct said to have been committed by the petitioner. After receiving his explanation, a memo of charges dated 21-7-1959 was also issued to the petitioner. The petitioner's explanation thereto is dated 5-8-1959. Thereafter another notice dated 28-7-1959 was issued to the petitioner and it is averred in Para.9 of the counter affidavit that in that memo, the petitioner was asked whether he desired an oral enquiry or a personal hearing. It is further averred that no reply was submitted by the petitioner to that memo. No such reply is seen in the files made available to me. I accept those statements.
(3.)It was thereafter that Ext. P. 3 order was passed. By that order, the petitioner was reverted to the post of an Assistant Teacher with effect from 1-5-1960, and his increment of pay was stopped for one year with cumulative effect from 1 5 1960. The petitioner was instructed to hand over charge to the new Headmaster whom 'the manager will appoint'. It appears that the petitioner did not comply with those directions to hand over charge and, therefore, he was suspended from service. Appeals were taken by the petitioner from the order Ext. P. 3 as well as from the order of suspension, Ext. P. 5, and these appeals have been dealt with by a common order, Ext. P. 7.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.