The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to supply relevant documents to the delinquent employee before calling for a reply to the charge-sheet, and the emphasis on the non-supply of relevant documents causing prejudice, which would vitiate the departmental proceedings.

Writ Petition is filed challenging the second show-cause notice dated 2. 2004 issued by the second respondent in Proceeding No.EDN/K/CM/FI 54/54/2004.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: - While working as a teacher in the third respondent school, on 31. 2003, the petitioner is said to have valued the revision test papers for the 10th Standard through students. It is further stated that the petitioner beat one student by name C.Sasikumar. With regard to the above incident (i.e.) beating of the student, it appears that a police complaint was lodged by the parents of the student who suffered injury and he was treated in the hospital. The parents gave a complaint to the Headmaster and the education authorities as well. On 2. 2003, the correspondent of the third school and others made some enquiries with regard to the incident and in order to find out the reason for the incident, the school appointed one Mr.A.Maria Stephen, Advocate to conduct a preliminary enquiry into the episode and submit a report. Such appointment was made by proceedings dated 12. 2003. The proceedings dated 12. 2003 was challenged in W.P.No.6703 of 2003 by the present writ petitioner. The court based on the counter-affidavit filed by the present respondent school came to the conclusion that the enquiry was preliminary in nature and since no charge memo was issued at that stage, the writ petitioner cannot plead prejudice. The W.P.No.6703 of 2003 was dismissed with an observation that the school should comply with the undertaking given in paragraph 13 of the affidavit. The third respondent school stated in the counter-affidavit filed in the earlier writ petition that after the preliminary enquiry is conducted, if there is any material to proceed further, then a charge memo will be issued.

3. Thereafter, the charge memo was issued on 6. 2003. In this, the proceedings dated 12. 2003 appointing the advocate as the preliminary enquiry officer and his report dated 6. 2003 are referred to in the reference as Serial Nos.1 and 3 and the order dated 4. 2003 passed by this court in earlier W.P.No.6703 of 2003 is referred to as Serial No.2.

4. As to the nature of the charges framed against the writ petitioner there is no dispute. On 16. 2003, the writ petitioner requested the management to furnish a copy of the preliminary report dated 6. 2003 so as to give his explanation. The management replied on 26. 2003 stating that the preliminary enquiry and the report is only for the purpose of determining as to whether disciplinary proceedings should be initiated or not. It is clearly stated that it was not intended to punish the petitioner without proper enquiry. It is very specifically stated in the reply letter dated 26. 2003 as follows:-

"The statements recorded there and the report thereof are not going to be used against anyone in the ongoing disciplinary proceedings, and hence there is no need to supply copies thereof to the participants."

The petitioner was asked to give his reply and he will be given ample opportunity to defend his case. On 26. 2003, petitioner gave an explanation to the show cause notice. On 20.8.2003, a retired Chief Educational Officer was appointed as enquiry officer on due intimation to the petitioner. Petitioner once again asked for a copy of the police complaint, the answer sheet and the preliminary enquiry report which was duly answered and turned down by the enquiry officer. The enquiry was thereafter conducted and a report was submitted on 2. 2004 holding that all the charges as proved. In the enquiry report, the list of witnesses and the documents relied upon has been mentioned. Based on the enquiry report, on 2. 2004, the second show-cause notice was issued to show cause as to why the enquiry report should not be accepted and disciplinary action should not be initiated against the writ petitioner. Along with the second show cause notice, a copy of enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner. One weeks time was given