Manager, Nanminda A U P School And Ors vs M.M. Ramesan And Ors

A.M. Shaffique, J

These appeals have been filed against a common interim order dated 4.1.2021 by which the learned Single Judge had directed reinstatement of the

petitioner Mr.M.M Ramesan, who was working as Headmaster of the school. In fact, he was suspended on 25.9.2018 as directed by the Educational

Authorities. What we find from the records is that, subsequently, the Educational Authorities as well as the Government had directed reinstatement of

the delinquent officer.

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the enquiry is pending before the Educational Authorities. It is possible that the disciplinary

action will completed within a short time. When the disciplinary action is to be finalized, there was no reason for the learned Single Judge to have

directed reinstatement. That apart, the Manager had filed a separate writ petition challenging the action of the Educational Authorities in directing the

reinstatement of the delinquent officer. It is also brought to our notice that the delinquent officer was involved in large scale misappropriation and the

charges are very serious in nature.

As already stated, the Educational Authorities were of the opinion that there was no reason to continue the suspension beyond the specified period.

The Manager can retain the teacher under suspension beyond the period of 15 days only after concurrence from the Educational Authorities and any

order of suspension requires to be reviewed every six months. Under such circumstances, when the Educational Authorities themselves felt that the

teacher is to be reinstated and the facts indicate that Manager was challenging the said orders and ultimately the Government itself formed an opinion

that the teacher should be reinstated and when the learned Single Judge had in mind all these factual aspects, there is justification for having directed

that the delinquent officer should be reinstated. Of course in W.P.(C).No.24183/2020 the learned Single Judge had issued an interim direction dated

9.11.2020, staying the reinstatement of the delinquent officer in service. But thereafter, when a common order had been passed in all these cases on

4.1.2021, it is apparent that the learned Single Judge had taken note of all the factual aspects involved in the case and had issued the direction. Hence

we do not intend to interfere with the impugned order.

The learned counsel for the appellant seeks for a direction to the Educational Authorities to complete the enquiry within a short time. Taking into

consideration the factual circumstances, there will be a direction to the Educational Authorities to complete the enquiry against the delinquent officer

as expeditiously as possible and not later than six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

Writ appeals stand dismissed.