IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2008 / 31ST SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 887 of 2004(E) ------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------ ABDUL HAMEED, S/O. KHADERKUNJU, PAMPINEAZHATHU HOUSE, PERINJANAM EAST, P.O.CHAKKARAPPADAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.R.CHANDRASEKHARAN SRI.P.K.YUSUFF ISSUDDIN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, VALAPPAD, CHANDRAPPINNI P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), KODUNGALLUR - 680 664. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PERINJANAM VILLAGE OFFICE, PERINJANAM P.O., KODUNGALLUR TALUK. 4. P.M.RAZIA HEADMISTRESS, A.M.L.P.SCHOOL, PERINJANAM EAST, PANIKKAVEETTIL PYYAKKAL, W/O. KHALID, P.O.KANDAMKULAM, MEATHALA - 680 689. 5. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. G.P. SRI.TEKCHAND FOR R1-3&5 SRI.T.V.VIJAYARAJAN FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DT.9.6.2002 FROM AJAYDAS (PARENT OF A STUDENT) TO THE PETITIONER. P2: TRUE COPY OF SUSPENSION ORDER DT.10.6.2002 ISSUED BY PETITIONER TO R4. P3: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT.21.6.2002 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO R1 REQUESTING TO EXTEND THE SUSPENSION PERIOD. P4: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT.24.6.2002 ISSUED BY R1 TO THE PETITIONER. P5: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT.29.5.2003 OF R1 TO THE PETITIONER RAISING A CLAIM AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR RS.83,720/-. P6: TRUE COPY OF REPLY NOTICE CUM OBJECTION DT.24.7.03 ISSUED BY PETITINER TO R1 AND R4 IN RESPECT OF EXT.P5. P7: TRUE COPY OF POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD SIGNED BY R1 AND R4 FOR THE RECEIPT OF EXT.P6. P8: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT.14.8.2003 ISSUED BY R1 TO THE PETITIONER. P9: TRUE COPY OF REPLY NOTICE DT.2.9.2003 ISSUED BY PETITIONER TO R1. P10: TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE IN FORM NO.10 (DT.14/12) DEMANDING RS.89,236/- ISSUED BY R2 TO THE PETITIONER AND CALLING FOR OBJECTION IF ANY. P11: TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE IN FORM NO.1 DT.4.12.2003 AS PER REQUISITION OF R1 ISSUED BY R2 TO THE PETITIONER. P12: TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION DT.18.12.2003 ISSUED BY PETITIONER TO R2 AGAINST EXT.P10 AND P11. P13: TRUE COPY OF POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD FOR THE RECEIPT OF EXT.P12 BY R1 AND R2. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.887 of 2004 .................................................................... Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging recovery proceedings for recovery of salary paid to a Headmistress for the period she was kept out of service by the petitioner as Manager of the School. I heard counsel for the petitioner and Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 and 5. The petitioner suspended the 4th respondent, Headmistress of the School on 10.6.2002. In terms of requirement of the Rule under the KER, the A.E.O. conducted enquiry, but declined to approve the suspension. Consequently 4th respondent ought to have been reinstated as Headmistress on 24.6.2002. However, petitioner declined to reinstate the 4th respondent. Consequently 4th respondent approached this court by filing O.P. 21086/2002. In the interim order issued by this court in the said O.P., Government was directed to reinstate the 4th respondent with back wages and with a further direction to recover the salary from the petitioner. It is in terms of the interim order in the said O.P., the present recovery proceedings is initiated against the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the suspension order was only for two weeks and consequently it was the duty of the 4th 2 respondent to have come and joined. According to him, 4th respondent did not join duty of her own and therefore, she was not entitled to salary. I do not think there is any scope for this court considering this issue because 4th respondent's entitlement for salary from 24.6.2002 is settled in the interim order and decision in O.P. No.21086/2002. Petitioner's contention that 4th respondent did not join duty after period of suspension is unacceptable because if 4th respondent was absent without leave, petitioner ought to have taken disciplinary action against her. The petitioner has no such case that she absented of her own and therefore, the claim of the 4th respondent and other respondents that she was not allowed to join duty by the petitioner is the reason for her absence, is to be accepted. Consequently and in view of the interim order issued by this court in the above O.P. and in terms of Rule 67(8) of Chapter XIV of K.E.R., the salary admittedly paid to the 4th respondent is recoverable from the petitioner-Manager. The W.P. is accordingly dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms