IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that failure to timely challenge a foundational order renders subsequent appeals against related disciplinary actions unmaintainable.

JUDGMENT :

Easwaran S., J.

The writ petitioner, as well as the 6th respondent in the writ petition, have come up with these intra-court appeals.

2. The facts, in brief, for disposal of these writ appeals are as follows:

The petitioner was appointed as Lower Primary School Assistant (LPSA) on 7.8.1999. On 14.10.2015, the petitioner was placed under suspension alleging that he physically manhandled the Manager and his wife. Thereafter, on 19.10.2015, the petitioner was served with a memo of charges. The suspension was later extended beyond fifteen days as per order dated 28.10.2015. Later on 12.4.2016, the District Educational Officer directed the Manager to reinstate the petitioner in service. Challenging the said direction, the Manager approached this Court in WP(C) No.17452/2016. By judgment dated 23.5.2016, the order was set aside and this Court directed the District Educational Officer to reconsider the case afresh. The Assistant Educational Officer completed the enquiry and submitted a report on 29-8-2016. Based on the enquiry report, Ext.P6 show cause notice dated 19.9.2016 was issued to the petitioner by the Manager. The petitioner submitted his objection on 24.10.2016. Dissatisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner, the Manager as per letter dated 8.11.2016 addressed to the Assistant Educational Officer, sought prior permission for imposition of major penalty of dismissal from the service. The Assistant Educational Officer sought certain clarifications, which was given by the Manager. Later by Ext.P12 order dated 17.4.2017, declined the request of the Manager for imposing a major penalty. Aggrieved by the decision of the District Educational Officer, the Manager approached the Government and by GO(RT) No.4508/2017/G.Edn. dated 22.11.2017 (Ext.P14), the Government set aside the order of the District Educational Officer and granted permission to the Manager to impose the major penalty against the petitioner. Later by Ext.P15 order dated 24.11.2017, the Manager imposed the punishment of dismissal from service against the petitioner. Pertinently, the teacher/petitioner did not think fit to challenge Ext.P14 order. However, against the order dated 24.11.2017, the petitioner preferred appeal under Rule 80 of Chapter-XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 on 26.12.2017. The appeal was dismissed on 9.1.2018 by the District Educational Officer as per Ext.P17. On 12.2.2018, the petitioner filed a revision before the Government. By Ext.P19 order dated 27.5.2019, the Government rejected the revision filed by the petitioner and confirmed Ext.P17 order passed by the District Educational Officer, thereby upholding the punishment imposed against the petitioner. Challenging Ext.P19, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. However, when the present writ petition was filed challenging Ext.P19 order, the petitioner raised a challenge against Ext.P14 order dated 22.11.2017 whereby the Government had granted permission to the Manager to impose the penalty of dismissal from service against the petitioner. The learned Single Judge after considering the rival contentions, directed the Government to re-consider the punishment imposed against the petitioner without setting aside Ext.P19 order. The said direction was issued, especially since the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the petitioner was entitled to the latitude of re-consideration of the punishment, vis-a-vis, the gravity of the proven offences.

3. Aggrieved by the said direction, the Manager filed intra-court appeal as W.A.No.630/2021 contending that without setting aside the orders impugned in the writ petition, the learned Single Judge could not have remitted the matter back to the Government for reconsideration. At the same time, the delinquent teacher also filed intra-court appeal as W.A.No.991/2021 stating that the learned Single Judge, having found that the petitioner was entitled for the latitude in the matter of punishment v