The court upheld the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, emphasizing the necessity of following statutory procedures and the exhaustion of available remedies under the Kerala Education Rules.

JUDGMENT :

1. The writ petition is preferred challenging Exts.P3, P5, P7, P11, P12 & P21. Ext.P3 is the memo. Ext.P5 is the order of the District Educational Officer for extension of suspension period beyond 15 days. Ext.P7 is the memo of charges. Ext.P11 is the rejection of request for examining 50 teachers. Ext.P12 is the show cause notice and Ext.P21 is the order passed as per the direction in Ext.P19 decision of the Division Bench of this Court.

2. Alleging certain irregularity in the conduct of the petitioner, he was suspended from the service of the 4^th respondent School as per Ext.P3. Thereafter the suspension was extended by Ext.P5 order by invoking sub-rules (7) & (8) of Rule 67 Chapter XIV A KER at the request of the Manager, the 4^th respondent. Thereafter, Ext.P7 memo of charges was issued to the petitioner. In the light of Ext.P7 the petitioner put forth his reply as per Ext.P8. The petitioner has approached the Deputy Director of Education to reinstate him in service.

However, his request was concluded citing that his suspension was highly essential for concluding the disciplinary proceedings, and by fixing a time limit for concluding the disciplinary proceedings, his request was rejected. Thereafter, the proceedings were continued. At the request of the petitioner, the enquiry officer was also changed, and the said enquiry officer continued the enquiry, and his request for cross-examining 50 teachers was rejected on the ground that it was his attempt to protract the finalisation of disciplinary proceedings. Thereafter, Ext.P12 show cause notice was issued to the petitioner whereby it was proposed to dismiss the petitioner from service. The petitioner preferred his reply as per Ext.P13. Thereafter he approached this Court by preferring OP No.16375 of 1999. However, this court has not considered the merits of the contention whereas directed to dispose the revision petition preferred by the petitioner.

3. Since the punishment proposed is dismissal from service, in statutory compliance with Rule 74 of Chapter XIV A KER, the manager approached the Deputy Director of Education. On considering the said application, the DDE has declined permission to impose major punishment like dismissal from service and directed to impose some other lesser punishment by reinstating the petitioner in service. Being aggrieved by that the Manager has preferred revision before the Government. By considering the revision, the government revised the punishment imposed by the Manager by barring two increments with cumulative effect and directed him to reinstate the petitioner in service. Being aggrieved by that, the manager has preferred OP No.14188 of2000.

4. By setting aside Ext.P16 Government Order, the writ petition was disposed of on the ground that the manager was not given an opportunity to be heard. Being aggrieved by that the petitioner has preferred WA No.1221 of 2000. The writ appeal was disposed of with a direction to the government to reconsider the revision petition. Accordingly, Ext.P17 was issued by reconsidering the revision petition. Wherein it was found that the punishment proposed by the manager was not commensurate with the gravity of offence and government suggested the punishment of barring the increment with cumulative effect for two years and treating the period of suspension as eligible leave. Being aggrieved by that, the petitioner as well as the manager challenged Ext.P17 by filing WP(C) No.10304 of 2001 and 10442 of2001 respectively.

5. Both writ petitions were disposed of by a common judgment whereby OP No.10304/2001 filed by the manager was disposed holding that the alternate penalty directed to be imposed by the DDE and government is correct as no major penalty is warranted in the facts of the case. However, the manager was free to take fresh action as to what penalty should be imposed on the delinquent employee and directed to impose one of the minor penalties provided under Rules 65 Chapter XIV A KER. On the other