IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2010 / 10TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20257 of 2010(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.L.DAISY, PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER(RETIRED), GOVERNMENT UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, PUTHIYANKAM, RESIDING AT PLAKKATT HOUSE, GANDHI JUNCTION, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR SMT.N.N.PRASEEDA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.DILIP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 20257 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a retiree from the service of the General Education Department. On 31.3.2009, she retired from its service. While she was in service, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against her and ultimately, it resulted in her exoneration from all charges. However, as per Ext.P1order dated 23.9.2009, the period of her suspension was ordered to be treated as eligible leave. Against Ext.P1 order, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Director of Public Instructions. As per Ext.P2 order, the Director of Public Instructions modified Ext.P1order treating the period of suspension of the petitioner as for duty for all purposes, however, her claim for salary was rejected. Against Ext.P2 order, the petitioner has approached the first respondent by filing Ext.P3 revision petition under Rule 35 of Part 7 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1960. I am of the view that it is nothing but misquoting of the relevant provisions. Indisputably, the first respondent is empowered to decide as to how the period of suspension should be treated by virtue of W.P.(C) NO.20257/2010 2 the provision under Rule 56(1) of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules. So long as there is such an enabling provision, the misquoting of such a provision in Ext.P3 shall not stand in the way of consideration of the same. In such circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 revision petition expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.20257/2010 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C). NO. /2010 JUDGMENT June, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.20257/2010 4