Dr. M.P. Anitha Principal (Under Suspension), SNM Training College, Moothakunnam v. State of Kerala and Others

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.** **MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 25TH ASHADHA, 1940 WA.No. 1285 of 2018 IN WPC. 36992/2017** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 36992/2017 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 24-05-2018** ## **APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER** **DR. M.P. ANITHA PRINCIPAL(UNDER SUSPENSION), SNM TRAINING COLLEGE, MOOTHAKUNNAM, ERNAKULAM DT.-683 516, RESIDING AT 'AJAY', PERIYAR ENCLAVE, MOOTHAKUNNAM P.O., N.PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 516.** **BY ADV.SRI.M.P.PRAKASH** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA** **REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** **2. VADAKKEKKARA HINDU MATHA DHARMA PARIPALANA SABHA, MOOTHAKUNNAM, NORTH PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM - 683 516, REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY.** ## **3. MANAGER,** **SNM TRAINING COLLEGE, MOOTHAKUNNAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 516.** **4. K.S. BALASUBRAMANIAN S/O. SANKARA NARAYANAN, SABARMATI, MADAPLATHURUTH, MOOTHAKUNNAM, NORTH PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM - 683 516.** **R2-R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.) R2-R4 BY ADV. SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI R2-R4 BY ADV. SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN R2-R4 BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJPRADEEP** **R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI A J VARGHESE** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-07-2018, ALONG WITH W.A.NO.1299 OF 2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **kkj** **WA.No. 1285 of 2018** **-2-** ## **WA.No. 1285 of 2018** ## **APPENDIX** ## **APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES : NIL** **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES : ANNEXURE R3A : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.06.2018 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE MANAGER** **// TRUE COPY //** **PA TO JUDGE** **K.SURENDRA MOHAN & SHIRCY V., JJ. --------------------------------------------W.A.Nos.1285 & 1299 of 2018 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 16[th] day of July, 2018** ## **J U D G M E N T** ## Surendra Mohan, J. The appellant in these Writ Appeals is aggrieved by the common judgment dated 24.05.2018 of the learned Single Judge finally disposing of W.P.(C) No.36992 of 2017 and 41257 of 2017. The appellant was the Writ Petitioner in both the cases. W.A.No.1285 of 2018 arises out of W.P.(C) No.36992 of 2017 and W.A.No.1299 of 2018 arises out of W.P.(C) No.41257 of 2017. 2. The appellant while working as Principal of the SNM Training College, Moothakunnam was placed under suspension on 05.05.2014 alleging various acts of indiscipline. She was later on reinstated in service on 01.10.2015. Her complaint in W.P.(C) No.36992 of 2017 was that the period of her suspension had not been regularized though she had been reinstated as stated above. 3. Later on, she was suspended again on 12.12.2017 ## -:2:- ## W.A.Nos.1285 & 1299 of 2018 on the basis of a memo of charges, exhibit P4. The memo of charges as well as her suspension as per exhibit P13 were under challenge in W.P.(C) No.41257 of 2017. 4. On the basis of the first memo of charges, a domestic enquiry was conducted finding that the charges were proved. The appellant had challenged the show cause notice issued to her on the basis of the report of the enquiry before this Court in W.P.(C) No.29124 of 2014. The said Writ Petition was disposed of granting liberty to the management to initiate action on the basis of a fresh memo of charges. Accordingly, a fresh memo of charges was issued which was the subject matter of challenge in W.P.(C) No.4388 of 2018. The said Writ Petition was disposed of directing the enquiry officer to decide the validity of the charges. Against the said judgment, W.A.No.881 of 2015 was preferred. During the pendency of the said Writ Appeal, the disciplinary proceedings were finalised and a punishment of barring of two increments was imposed on ## -:3:- ## W.A.Nos.1285 & 1299 of 2018 the appellant. It was thereafter that, W.P.(C) No.36992 of 2017 was filed seeking orders regarding regularisation of the period of suspension, by the appellant. In the said Writ Petition, the learned Single has directed appropriate orders regularising the period of suspension of the appellant to be passed. Accordingly, we are informed that the period of her suspension has already been regularised. A copy of the said order dated 28.06.2018 is produced as exhibit R3(a) along with the counter affidavit of the third respondent in I.A.No.841 of 2018. Since the period of suspension of the appellant has already been regularised as stated above, nothing survives in Writ Appeal No.1285 of 2015. 5. As already noticed above, as per exhibit P13 judgment dated 12.12.2017, the petitioner was placed under suspension for the second time. The said suspension was on the basis of exhibit P4 memo of charges. It is not in dispute that, the domestic enquiry that was instituted into the charges against the appellant has been completed -:4:- ## W.A.Nos.1285 & 1299 of 2018 finding the appellant guilty and imposing a punishment on her. Against the said order, the appellant is stated to have preferred an appeal before the University Appellate Tribunal, which is pending. As per an interim order passed by the Tribunal, we are informed that the punishment imposed on the appellant has also been stayed. According to the counsel for the third respondent, the interim order granted by the University Appellate Tribunal is the subject matter of challenge in W.P.(C) No.22891 of 2018 which is pending. It is also stated that, this Court has granted as an interim order of stay against the said interim order. 6. We have heard the learned Senior counsel Sri.Jaju Babu who appears for the third respondent, the Standing Counsel for the University as well as the learned Government Pleader. 7. In view of the fact that, a domestic enquiry that was ordered into the charges levelled against the appellant has reached its conclusion and the further fact that a ## -:5:- ## W.A.Nos.1285 & 1299 of 2018 punishment has also been imposed on the appellant finding that the charges were substantiated, we are not satisfied that the challenge against the memo of charges survives. It is also necessary to notice that the appellant has already challenged the punishment imposed on her before the University Appellate Tribunal. She has also obtained an interim order in the said proceedings. In view of the above subsequent events, we are not satisfied that the appellant is entitled to any relief in W.A.No.1299 of 2018. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that, in view of the decision of another Division Bench of this Court in **Rajagopal.B v. Jolly Xavier** [ILR 2010(2) Kerala 117], the judgment of the learned Single Judge is liable to be interfered with, we are not satisfied that the dictum in the said decision offers any help to the appellant, in the factual scenario referred to above. For the foregoing reasons, these appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed. Needless to observe that, the -:6:- W.A.Nos.1285 & 1299 of 2018 appellant shall be at liberty to urge all her contentions against the punishment imposed on her as well as the domestic enquiry conducted, in her appeal pending before the University Appellate Tribunal. Sd/- **K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE** Sd/- **SHIRCY V. JUDGE** kkj