IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2008 / 11TH MAGHA 1929 WA.No. 247 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.20894/2005 DATED 01/08/2007 .................... APPELLANT/ PETITIONER IN W.P.(C): ----------------------------------------------------- K.P.SHAJI, S/O.PURUSHSOTHAMAN, AGED 53, VILLAGE EXTENSION OFFICER, BLOCK OFFICE, VAZHAKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.PRADEEP KUMAR RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------ 1. ELOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ELOOR, UDYOGAMANDAL P.O., REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, BLOCK OFFICE, ALANGAD. 4. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BENNY GERVASIS. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N. RAVINDRAN, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------------- W.A.NO.247 OF 2008-E -------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J: The appellant is the writ petitioner. He was suspended from service by the President of the Eloor Grama Panchayat, 1st respondent herein, by Ext.P1 order. The petitioner challenged the said order before this Court. This Court directed the District Collector or any other officer authorised by him to look into the representation filed by the petitioner on 7.1.2005 against the suspension and to take a decision. Pursuant to the said judgment, the District Collector authorised the Additional District Magistrate to consider Ext.P8. The said officer heard all the parties and gave certain suggestions. Incorporating those suggestions, Ext.P3 order has been passed on behalf of the District Collector. One of the suggestions contained in Ext.P3 is to warn the petitioner and to reinstate him in service. It was also directed to transfer him to some other block. In obedience to the said order, the petitioner was reinstated in service. But the period he was out of service was ordered to be treated as eligible leave by Ext.P5. W.A.NO.247/08 . 2 The writ petition was filed challenging Ext.P5. 2. According to the petitioner, since he was not found guilty, he is entitled to get entire salary for the period he was out of service. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this appeal. The aforementioned contention of the petitioner was reiterated by the counsel for the appellant before us. But, we notice that as per Ext.P3 proceedings the petitioner was to be warned before he was reinstated in service. In other words, he was not exonerated. Therefore, his claim for the full salary for the period he was out of service is unsustainable. We, therefore, find nothing illegal with the judgment under appeal. Accordingly, the writ appeal fails and it is dismissed. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR , JUDGE P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. cl W.A.NO.247/08 . 3