Initially, the grievance of the petitioner was that the Director, having been empowered under Rule 7 Chapter III of Kerala Education Rules to disqualify an erring Manager, could have exercised the said power in its entirety, instead of delegating it in piecemeal to the fourth respondent. In other words, having enquired into the issue of placing the petitioner under disqualification, after following the due process as has been mandated under Rule 7 Chapter III of KER, instead of passing the final orders, the second respondent ought not have directed the fourth respondent to disqualify the petitioner, yet again after going through the process mandated under Rule 7, by the fourth respondent. 2. In that context, this Court disposed of W.P.(C) No.25577/2014 filed by the petitioner, setting aside the penultimate paragraph of the impugned Exhibit P12 therein. This Court further directed that the second respondent had either to conclude the process he had initiated under Rule 7 Chapter III of KER by pronouncing orders finally on the issue of disqualification of the petitioner, or else delegate the entire power of adjudication eventually to the fourth respondent, whichever is desirable as the second respondent would deem fit.
3. Later, in course of time, the fourth respondent passed Exhibit P5 order without reference to the above direction in W.P.(C)No.25577/2014. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. While the matter was taken up for consideration, the fourth respondent filed a sworn affidavit explaining the circumstances under which he passed Exhibit P5 order, and at any rate regretted his action in not paying much attention to the judgement of this Court in W.P.(C)No.25577/2014. This Court, thus, condoned the lapse on the part of the fourth respondent, given the fact that the fourth respondent recalled his Exhibit P5 order. Under those circumstances, this Court has proposed to dispose of the present writ petition with suitable directions in tune with the judgement dated 08.10.2014, rendered in W.P.(C)No.25577/2014. At that juncture, the learned Government Pleader informed the Court that though the Government had every desire to comply with the judgement dated 08.10.2014, the second respondent officer had gone on long leave and that any insistence that he alone should pass the order in terms of the judgement dated 08.10.2014, might cause delay and difficulty. Accordingly, he sought time to enquire whether the officer occupying the position of the second respondent would be returning to duty in a short span time.
4. Today, the learned Government Pleader has informed that the officer occupying the position of the second respondent has gone on leave and some other officer has been given the full additional charge of the post. Since this Court through Exhibit P1 judgment issued a direction to the second respondent either to take a final decision in terms of the enquiry conducted by the said authority or to delegate the entire powers to his subordinate, but not in piecemeal manner, i.e., hearing by one authority and imposing the punishment by another authority.
5. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader, it is evident that the officer occupying the position of the second respondent is unlikely to come back to duty within a short span of time. In Exhibit P1 this Court only observed that it is the second respondent who is required to take a decision. Ipso facto, the direction is not person specific but position specific. Accordingly, whoever is occupying the position of the second respondent is at liberty to take appropriate decision in terms of Exhibit P1 judgment of this Court.
In view of the subsequent developments, already the impugned order was recalled by the authorities and the management of the school was re-entrusted to the petitioner. Apart from implementing the directions of this Court in Exhibit P1, nothing remains. Accordingly, the present writ petition is closed.
Dama Seshadri Naidu, Judge tkv