Reena Antony v Central Board of Secondary Education and Others

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL`** ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1945 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 31517 OF 2011`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` REENA ANTONY, ERATHARA HOUSE, ST.JOHN'S NAGAR, KONTHURUTHY, THEVARA P.O,KOCHI 682 013 ``` ``` BY ADVS. ``` ``` SRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN SMT.AISWARYA ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** |`1`|`CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION,`| |---|---| ||`SHIKSHA KENDRA, 2-COMMUNITY CENTRE,`| ||`PREET VIHAR, DELHI-110 301.`| ||`REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY`| |`2`|`THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY,`| ||`CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION,`| ||`REGIONAL OFFICE,NO.3 J'BLOCK, 16TH MAIN ROAD,`| ||`ANNA NAGAR,(WEST) CHENNAI 600 040.`| |`3`|`NAVY CHILDREN SCHOOL,`| ||`NAVAL BASE,KOCHI-682 004.`| ||`REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR`| |`4`|`SCHOOL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE,`| ||`NAVY CHILDREN SCHOOL, NAVAL BASE, KOCHI-682 004,`| ||`REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN`| |`5`|`THE CHAIRMAN,`| ||`DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE, NAVY CHILDREN SCHOOL,`| ||`KOCHI-682 004`| ||`BY ADVS.`| ||`SRI.NIRMAL S., SC, CBSE`| ||`P.BENNY THOMAS`| ||`M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR`| ``` WP(C) NO. 31517 OF 2011-2 ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` `WP(C) NO. 31517 OF 2011 -` 3 `-` ## **`JUDGMENT`** The present writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner while working as a Post Graduate Teacher (Chemistry) in the Navy Children School, Kochi against the order of compulsory retirement dated 27.12.2010 Ext.P21 and dismissal of the appeal Ext.P24 dated 14.09.2011. 2. Petitioner entered the service of the school in the year 1992 and had been taking classes of Chemistry theory for all divisions of standard XI and XII and practical classes for divisions of standard XII. Petitioner received a letter from the Principal of the School regarding the complaints received from the parents that her teaching standard in Chemistry for standard XII was poor and accordingly, vide letter dated 23.07.2009 Ext.P1, an explanation was called. On receipt of the aforementioned letter petitioner stated that she had `WP(C) NO. 31517 OF 2011 -` 4 `-` unblemished career of eighteen(18) years and was discharging her duties with full diligence and dedication vide explanation dated 30.07.2009 Ext.P2. Petitioner was flabbergasted to receive a show cause notice dated 28.08.2009 Ext.P3 on the ground that the contents of the letter were objectionable and the language used was unbecoming of a teacher which required initiation of disciplinary action and why the disciplinary action should not be taken. An explanation dated 29.08.2009 Ext.P4 was submitted. In view of the explanation Ext.P4 her apology tendered was accepted. However, in June, 2010 acquired the knowledge from the staff members that some discreet enquiry, regarding her character and personal whereabouts, was being made against the petitioner. Apprehensive of being targeted, a letter dated 06.06.2010 was submitted to the Flag Officer, Commanding-in-Chief of the Southern Naval Command Ext.P5. When the new time table for the academic `WP(C) NO. 31517 OF 2011 -` 5 `-` session commencing on 21.06.2010 was issued, petitioner was only assigned to discharge the duty of teaching to Class XI C only. Letter in this regard dated 21.06.2010 was addressed to the Principal Ext.P6. A show cause notice dated 12.07.2010 Ext.P8 was received by the petitioner on the allegation of using of unsubstantiated statements, derogatory and threatening language much less insubordination. An explanation dated 21.07.2010 Ext.P9 was submitted. A written apology was also submitted on 23.07.2010 Ext.P10. However after receiving the apology Ext.P10 petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from 23.07.2010 Ext.P11 and another show cause notice dated 04.08.2010 Ext.P12 was received as to why the disciplinary proceedings should not be taken. A detailed explanation Ext.P13 dated 16.08.2010 was submitted but was served with a memo of charges and allegations vide communication dated 13.10.2010 Ext.P14. The detailed `WP(C) NO. 31517 OF 2011 -` 6 `-` explanation to the memo of charges and statement of allegations was submitted vide Ext.P15, but being dissatisfied, the school management committee appointed an Enquiry Officer vide letter dated 16.10.2010 Ext.P16. Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and submitted a report dated 12.11.2010 Ext.P17 approving the charges against the petitioner alleging that there was a violation of Article 42 Sub para (1) (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v) of the Code of Conduct of employees under the Central Board of School Education Affiliation Bye-laws. The show cause notice was issued with regard to the imposition of the punishment vide Ext.P19 dated 09.12.2010 which was replied vide Ext.P20 dated 14.12.2010 and vide Ext.P21 impugned communication dated 27.12.2010, was imposed a major penalty of compulsory retirement. Against the aforementioned order appeal was preferred as noticed above which was heard by the disciplinary committee `WP(C) NO. 31517 OF 2011 -` 7 `-` consisting of five(5) members and vide impugned communication dated 14.09.2011 Ext.P24 appeal was dismissed. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that after the imposition of the penalty and dismissal of the appeal, one member of the committee heard the appeal addressed letter dated 26.09.2011 Ext.P26 to the Manager of the School that petitioner should not have been imposed the major penalty and it was a case of minor penalty. 4. Writ petition against respondent No.2 would be maintainable in view of the judgment rendered by hon’ble Supreme Court in **Ramesh Ahluwalia V. State of Panjab and Others (2012) 12 SCC 331** as respondents are imparting education which would fall within the definition of a public duty not necessarily imposed by the statute and therefore technicalities should not come in the way of granting reliefs and it was `WP(C) NO. 31517 OF 2011 -` 8 `-` held that the writ petition under Article 12 was maintainable. The aforementioned judgment has been reiterated in the subsequent judgment in **Marwari Balika Vidyalaya V. Asha Srivastava and Others (2020) 14 SCC 449** . The Division Bench of this Court in **Sommy Kunjappan and Another V. Central Board of** **Secondary Education and Others 2019 (2) KHC 1** rendered the judgment on 28.02.2019 whereas the **Marwari Balika** (supra) was on 14.02.2019, thus prevented from the judgment of the Supreme Court and thus held that the writ under Article 12 against the private school would not be maintainable. It was submitted that had the judgment of Supreme Court been available, perhaps the findings would have been different. 5. The language in Ext.P2 was apology not only once but twice tendered, but despite that the respondents were hell-bent to tarnish the image of the `WP(C) NO. 31517 OF 2011 -` 9 `-` petitioner and instead of imposing a minor penalty of censure or withholding of increment, imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement. 6. Petitioner at the time of filing of the writ petition was aged forty-seven(47) years. Now is fiftynine(59) years old and would be attaining retirement at the age of sixty(60). The punishment imposed does not commensurate with the allegation of the charges and therefore impugned order is to be set aside. 7. On the other hand learned counsel representing the respondent No.1 CBSE and respondent No.2 raised the objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition by citing an order of the Supreme Court in **Committee of Management, Delhi Public School and Another V. M.K.Gandhi and Others (2015) 17 SCC 353** , wherein in the case of the termination of service of teachers of private school contrary to bye-laws was questioned under Article 226 of the Constitution of `WP(C) NO. 31517 OF 2011 -` 10 `-` India and it was held that the appropriate remedy was to file suit for damages and not writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The letter dated 26.09.2011 Ext.P26 is post the decision of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority therefore would pale into insignificance. More over, it would not have a binding effect or impact on the officers for reviewing their orders. The demeanor of the petitioner using the intemperate language would definitely have a reflection on imparting education to the children, in such circumstances her presence was not felt desirable in the school. Order of compulsory retirement is not stigmatic as it would not bar the petitioner to seek re-employment. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book. 9. On perusal of the contents of the letter Ext.P2, it appears to be not only harsh but intemperate and `WP(C) NO. 31517 OF 2011 -` 11 `-` ought not to have been expected to be written by a person who is discharging a noble course of teaching. The said reply lead to the initiation of a show cause notice with the following allegations. ## “MEMO OF CHARGES 1. Violation of Code of Conduct enumerated in the NES Guide Book Articles, 1826 (a) (xiii), which reads as under- “No teacher shall be guilty of misbehaviour or cruelty towards any teacher or employee of the School” 2. Violation of Article 1826 (b) (ii), which reads as under: “Every teacher shall abide by the rules and regulations of the School and also show due respect to the constituted authority.” 3. Violation of the following clauses contained in Article 42 relating to Code of Conduct of Employees under the CBSE Affiliation Bylaws, which read as follows:- - (a) Use of abusive language [Article 42 Sub Para 1 (ii)]. `WP(C) NO. 31517 OF 2011 -` 12 `-` - (b) Insubordination and defiance of lawful order [Article 42 Sub Para 1 (iii)]. - (c) Disrespectful behaviour, rumour mongering and character assassination [Article 42 Sub Para 1 (iv)]. - (d) Making false accusation (by making representation to the management in rude and indecorous language) either provoked or otherwise [Article 42 Sub Para 1 (v)]. ” 10. No doubt, use of intemperate language would fall within the provisions of Article 42(i) and (ii), but it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner had been repeatedly indulging into such language except when a letter was addressed to Flag Officer. Contents of the letter were not replica of the words and sentences used in Ext.P2, prima facie it was a case of an outburst where a teacher having unblemished carrier of eighteen(18) years was suddenly jolted on the acquisition of some complaints regarding her capability of teaching. `WP(C) NO. 31517 OF 2011 -` 13 `-` 11. Before dealing with the merits of the matter, I would be dealing with the objections taken by the respondents regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. The Division Bench judgment of this Court in **Sommy Kunjappan** (supra) was called upon to decide question in view of the conflicting views regarding the jurisdiction of the High Court in entertaining writ petition arising from the service matters pertaining to the private schools. It was held that the contract of personal service cannot be enforced. While dealing with the aforementioned, judgment of Supreme Court in **Ramesh Ahluwalia** (supra) was also cited and in paragraph No.9, it was held that the decision in Ramesh Ahluwalia is clearly distinguishable in as much as the employee therein was only directed to file an appeal before the Education Tribunal constituted. On the contrary, in paragraph Nos.12 to 14 of **Ramesh Ahluwalia** , the Supreme Court held as under: `WP(C) NO. 31517 OF 2011 -` 14 `-` “12. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, in view of the judgment rendered by this Court in Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust there can be no doubt that even a purely private body, where the State has no control over its internal affairs, would be amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, for issuance of a writ of mandamus. Provided, of course, the private body is performing public functions which are normally expected to be performed by the State authorities. 13. In the aforesaid case, this Court was also considering a situation Where the services of a Lecturer had been terminated who was working in the college run by the Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust. In those circumstances, this Court has clearly observed as under: (V.R. Rudani case, SCC pp. 700-701, paras 20 & 22) “20. The term ‘authority’ used in Article 226, in the context, must receive a liberal meaning unlike the term in Article 12. `WP(C) NO. 31517 OF 2011 -` 15 `-` Article 12 is relevant only for the purpose of enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 32. Article 226 confers power on the High Courts to issue writs for enforcement of the fundamental rights as well as non-fundamental rights. The words ‘any person or authority’ used in Article 226 are, therefore, not to be confined only to statutory authorities and instrumentalities of the State. They may cover any other person or body performing public duty. The form of the body concerned is not very much relevant. What is relevant is the nature of the duty imposed on the body. The duty must be judged in the light of positive obligation owed by the person or authority to the affected party. No matter by what means the duty is imposed, if a positive obligation exists mandamus cannot be denied. 22. Here again we may point out that mandamus cannot be denied on the ground that the duty to be enforced is not imposed by the statute. Commenting on the development of this law, Professor de Smith states: ‘To be enforceable by mandamus a public duty does not `WP(C) NO. 31517 OF 2011 -` 16 `-` necessarily have to be one imposed by statute. It may be sufficient for the duty to have been imposed by charter, common law, custom or even contract.’ We share this view. The judicial control over the fast expanding maze of bodies affecting the rights of the people should not be put into watertight compartment. It should remain flexible to meet the requirements of variable circumstances. Mandamus is a very wide remedy which must be easily available ‘to reach injustice wherever it is found’. Technicalities should not come in the way of granting that relief under Article 226. We, therefore, reject the contention urged for the appellants on the maintainability of the writ petition.” The aforesaid observations have been repeated and reiterated in numerous judgments of this Court including the judgments in Unni Krishnan and Zee Telefilms Ltd. brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr Parikh. 14. In view of the law laid down in the aforementioned judgments of this Court, the judgment of the learned Single Judge as also the Division Bench of the High Court cannot be `WP(C) NO. 31517 OF 2011 -` 17 `-` sustained on the proposition that the writ petition would not be maintainable merely because the respondent institution is a purely unaided private educational institution. The appellant had specifically taken the plea that the respondents perform public functions i.e. providing education to children in their institutions throughout India.” 12. The findings rendered in **M.K.Gandhi** (supra) was in the context where the Full Bench of Allahabad High Court held that the writ petition against the private party was not maintainable, but issued certain directions which were found to be not tenable. In **Marwari Balika Vidyalaya** (supra) the facts related to approval of the termination from the Government. From the facts it was noticed that the approval of the Government with regard to the termination was required to be followed but while considering all the cases laws on this point, in paragraph Nos.15, 16, 17 and 21 held that the writ petition against the private school would be `WP(C) NO. 31517 OF 2011 -` 18 `-` ## maintainable. The same reads as under: “ 15. Writ application was clearly maintainable in view of aforesaid discussion and more so in view of the decision of this Court in Ramesh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab in which this Court has considered the issue at length and has thus observed: (SCC pp. 336-37, paras 13 & 14) “13. In the aforesaid case, this Court was also considering a situation where the services of a Lecturer had been terminated who was working in the college run by the Andi Mukti Sadguru Shree MuktajeeVandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust. In those circumstances, this Court has clearly observed as under: (V.R. Rudani case, SCC pp. 700-701,paras 20 & 22) ‘20. The term “authority” used in Article 226, in the context, must receive a liberal meaning unlike the term in Article 12. Article 12 is relevant only for the purpose of enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 32. Article 226 confers power on the High Courts to issue writs for enforcement of the `WP(C) NO. 31517 OF 2011 -` 19 `-` fundamental rights as well as nonfundamental rights. The words “any person or authority” used in Article 226 are, therefore, not to be confined only to statutory authorities and instrumentalities of the State. They may cover any other person or body performing public duty. The form of the body concerned is not very much relevant. What is relevant is the nature of the duty imposed on the body. The duty must be judged in the light of positive obligation owed by the person or authority to the affected party. No matter by what means the duty is imposed, if a positive obligation exists mandamus cannot be denied. 22. Here again, we may point out that mandamus cannot be denied on the ground that the duty to be enforced is not imposed by the statute. Commenting on the development of this law, Professor de Smith states: “To be enforceable by mandamus a public duty does not necessarily have to be one imposed by statute. It may `WP(C) NO. 31517 OF 2011 -` 20 `-` be sufficient for the duty to have been imposed by charter, common law, custom or even contract”. We share this view. The judicial control over the fast expanding maze of bodies affecting the rights of the people should not be put into watertight compartment. It should remain flexible to meet the requirements of variable circumstances. Mandamus is a very wide remedy which must be easily available “to reach injustice wherever it is found”. Technicalities should not come in the way of granting that relief under Article 226. We, therefore, reject the contention urged for the appellant on the maintainability of the writ petition.’ The aforesaid observations have been repeated and reiterated in numerous judgments of this Court including the judgments in Unni Krishnan and Zee Telefilms Ltd. brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Parikh. 14. In view of the law laid down in the aforementioned judgment of this Court, the `WP(C) NO. 31517 OF 2011 -` 21 `-` judgment of the learned Single Judge as also the Division Bench of the High Court cannot be sustained on the proposition that the writ petition would not maintainable merely because the respondent institution is a purely unaided private educational institution. The appellant had specifically taken the plea that the respondents perform public functions i.e. providing education to children in their institutions throughout India.” (emphasis supplied) 16. It is apparent from the aforesaid decisions that the writ application is maintainable in such a matter even as against the private unaided educational institutions. 17. The learned Senior Counsel relied upon the decision of this Court in Delhi Public School v. M.K.Gandhi wherein the question of termination of services of teachers was involved. The Committee of Management filed a civil appeal in this Court against the decision of the Allahabad High Court contending that the Delhi Public School, Ghaziabad was not “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. The question involved was that termination of service of teachers of a private school without conducting the enquiry was `WP(C) NO. 31517 OF 2011 -` 22 `-` contrary to bye-laws. This Court held that the writ application was not maintainable as a private school is not “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution. It is pertinent to mention here that the question of approval by Government authority was not involved in M.K. Gandhi. Thus, this decision is distinguishable. 18. xxxxxx 19. xxxxxx 20. xxxxxx 21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we have no hesitation to hold that the writ application is maintainable as rightly held by the Division Bench of the High Court.” 13. In this case also the appellate authority consisted of the member of the CBSE. CBSE also is the instrumentality of the State. Thus, I reject the argument of the counsel for the respondents and follow the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to above to hold that the writ petition against private educational institutions would be maintainable. 14. On merits: the imposition of the compulsory `WP(C) NO. 31517 OF 2011 -` 23 `-` retirement at the age of forty-seven(47) is too harsh. It causes a deep impression on the mind of an employee, some times results into a psychological disorder in seeking a re-employment. It is settled law that if the allegation of charges are of grievous nature the punishment imposed would definitely be under the category of major. But here the allegation was not of a grave nature warranting compulsory retirement, at the best it could have been a censure or withholding of an increment, particularly when the authority did not take into consideration the career of the petitioner. None of the parents of the students who alleged to have made a complaint regarding the conduct and teaching of the petitioner were examined to substantiate the show cause notice Ext.P1. 15. For the reasons aforementioned Ext.P21 order of the appellate authority is set aside. Impugned order Ext.P12 is modified. It would be treated as a minor `WP(C) NO. 31517 OF 2011 -` 24 `-` penalty of withholding of one increment. 16. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the time of compulsory retirement petitioner was paid terminal benefits which has been deposited as per the receipts. He undertakes to return the same. On return of the terminal benefits inclusive of the interest, respondents will take the petitioner back to the service and pay all the arrears of the salary and consequential benefits. Aforesaid exercises will be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. Sd/- ``` AMIT RAWAL JUDGE ``` ``` vv ``` `WP(C) NO. 31517 OF 2011 -` 25 `-` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31517/2011`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** ``` EXHIBIT P1 ``` ``` THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO. NCS/DISC/01 DATED 23-07-2009 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE PRINCIPAL, OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT SCHOOL. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P2 ``` ``` THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 30-07-2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE PRINCIPAL OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT SCHOOL. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P3 ``` ``` THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO. ED-1223/13/5/01 DATED 28-08-2009 ISSUED BY THE VICE-CHAIRMAN OF THE 4TH RESPONDENTCOMMITTEETOTHE PETITIONER. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P4 ``` ``` THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 29-08-2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE VICE-CHAIRMAN OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT COMMITTEE. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P5 ``` ``` THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06- 06-2010 ADDRESSED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE FLAG OFFICER COMMANDING-IN-CHIEF OF THE SOUTHERN NAVAL COMMAND. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P6 ``` ``` THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21- 06-2010 ADDRESSED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE PRINCIPAL, OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT SCHOOL. ``` `WP(C) NO. 31517 OF 2011 -` 26 `-` ``` EXHIBIT P7 ``` ``` THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO. ED- 1223/13/5(R) DATED 21-06-2010 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE OFFICE OF THESOUTHERNNAVALCOMMAND HEADQUARTERS. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P8 ``` ``` THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO. ED-1223/13/5/01 DATED 12-07-2010 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE DIRECTOR, OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT SCHOOL. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P9 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 21-07-2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT SCHOOL. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P10 ``` ``` THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 2307-2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT SCHOOL. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P11 ``` ``` THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF SUSPENSION NO. ED-1223/13/5/01 DATED 23-07-2010 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR, OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT SCHOOL TO THE PETITIONER. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P12 ``` ``` THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO. ED-1223/13/5/01 DATED 04-08-2010 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT SCHOOL. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P13 ``` ``` THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 16-08-2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ``` `WP(C) NO. 31517 OF 2011 -` 27 `-` ``` BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT SCHOOL. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P14 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P15 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P16 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P17 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P18 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P19 ``` ``` THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO. ED-1223/13/5/01DATED13-10-2010 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE DIRECTOR, OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT SCHOOL TOGETHER WITH THE STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS AND MEMO OF CHARGES. ``` ``` THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27-09-2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT COMMITTEE. ``` ``` THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO. ED- 1223/13/5/01 DATED 16-10-2010 ISSUED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT COMMITTEE. ``` ``` THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 12-11-2010 SUBMITTED IN THE MATTER OF DOMESTIC ENQUIRY INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONER. ``` ``` THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24-11-2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT COMMITTEE. ``` ``` THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE NO. ED- 1223/13/5/01 DATED 09-12-2010 ISSUED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT COMMITTEE TO THE PETITIONER. ``` `WP(C) NO. 31517 OF 2011 -` 28 `-` ``` EXHIBIT P20 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P21 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P22 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P23 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P24 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P25 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P26 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P27 ``` - `THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 14-12-2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SCHOOL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE.` - `THE PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER NO. ED1223/13/5/01 DATED 27-12-2010 OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT COMMITTEE.` - `THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 20-01-2011 (WITHOUT ANNEXURES).` - `THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ATTENDANCE SHEET OF THE MEETING OF THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE HELD ON 26-08-2011.` - `THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.ED-1223/13/5/01 DATED 14-09-2011 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT.` - `THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO. NCS/HQ/B 25 DATED 27-09-2011 OF THE PRINCIPAL OF THE SCHOOL` - `THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO.CBSE/RO(M)/AS/2011 DATED 26-09-2011 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.` ``` THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24- 10-2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. ``` `WP(C) NO. 31517 OF 2011 -` 29 `-` ``` EXHIBIT P28 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P29 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P30 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P31 ``` ``` THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO.ED- 1223/13/5/01 DATED 04-11-2011 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIONER. ``` ``` THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15- 11-2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ``` ``` THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE FIXED DEPOSIT RECEIPT NO.0333849 DATED 15-11-2011 ISSUED BY THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, ERNAKULAM SOUTH BRANCH. ``` ``` THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE FIXED DEPOSIT RECEIPT NO.0333850 DATED 15-11-2011 ISSUED BY THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, ERNAKULAM SOUTH BRANCH. ```