AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J
The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers:-
i. issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction calling for the records leading to Exhibit-P5 punishment order, Exbt-P6 and Exhibit-P7 orders and Exbt-P8 memo of charges and quash the same.
ii. to dispense with the production of translation of documents in vernacular language.
iii. issue such other reliefs as this court deems fit to grant in the nature of the case.
The petitioner had been working as an Urdu Teacher in the school of the fourth respondent since 01-06-2010. The wife of the petitioner Smt.Fathimath Shareefa is the Manager of another school namely AUP School, Pulasserikara in the same sub district. Fifth respondent was the Head Master and sixth respondent was a senior teacher in the above school. It is the case of the petitioner that because of the irresponsible attitude of the fifth and sixth respondents the student strength deteriorated and division fall occurred in the school. On 09.03.2018 at about 4pm, it is submitted that, there was an altercation between the wife of the petitioner and respondents 5 and 6. Wife of the petitioner telephoned him and requested to come to school. By the time the petitioner had finished teaching classes in his school and he reached the school. It is the case of the petitioner that the sixth respondent attempted to outrage his wife. The wife was admitted in the hospital. Feeling danger, it is stated that the fifth and sixth respondents also got admitted. It is submitted that a false FIR is registered against the petitioner and based on the same, a disciplinary proceedings was initiated which culminated in Ext.P5, by which a punishment of censure was imposed. It is the case of the petitioner that, thereafter, a fresh show cause notice with memo of charges issued to the petitioner against which the petitioner submitted Ext.P9 written statement. According to the petitioner, the second disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner when a punishment is already imposed as evident by Ext.P5 is not sustainable. Hence this writ petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government pleader.
After hearing both sides, I don’t want to make any observation about the facts of the case. Ext.P8 is the memo of charge. The petitioner submitted his written statement as evident by Ext.P9. Ext.P8 is dated 28-04-2022 and Ext.P9 is dated 16-05-2022.
The apprehension of the petitioner is that without considering the contention in Ext.P5, the Disciplinary Authority may proceed with Ext.P8. I think there can be a direction to the Assistant Educational Officer, Shornur, the third respondent to consider Ext.P9 before taking further steps based on the memo of charge.
Therefore this writ petition is disposed of with the following direction;
The third respondent is directed to consider the contenion of the peittioner in Ext.P9 with notice to the affected parties and take appropriate decision in it before proceeding with the disciplinary proceedings.