IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2008 / 30TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 31138 of 2007(F) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- K.M.SATHIANATHAN, LPSA, KULUPPA L.P.SCHOOL, MELADY, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MELADY, KOZHIKODE. 4. THE MANAGER, KULUPPA ALP SCHOOL, MELADY, KOZHIKODE. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. T.B.REMANI FOR R1 TO 3 ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS FOR R.4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/10/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.31138/2007 F APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CC 248/2000 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT I, KOZHIKODE. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 23/11/05. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 22/06/2007. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER DTD. 19/07/2000. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 20/08/2007. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.31138/2007 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a LPSA. Following his implication as an accused in CC.No.248/2000, on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kozhikode alleging offences under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 482 IPC he was placed under suspension with effect from 23.8.1998. The case was charge sheeted he faced trial and Ext.P1 is the judgment rendered by the Criminal Court acquitting him. Thereafter he was reinstated in service by Ext.P2 order dated 31.5.2005 but however the period from 23.8.1998 to 31.5.2005 was treated as leave without allowance. Petitioner sought a review by filing a representation and that was considered by the Government and rejected by Ext.P3 on the ground that his acquittal was not a honorable acquittal. Though the WP(c).No.31138/2007 2 petitioner sought a review of that decision that was also declined by Ext.P5. It is in these circumstances the writ petition has been filed challenging the aforesaid orders. 2. The main contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the acquittal by Ext.P1 judgment, is after discussing the entire evidence produced by the prosecution and was on the ground that the prosecution had filed to prove the guilt of the accused. It is contended that the acquittal was an honorable acquittal and therefore P2 order treating the period from 23.8.98 to 31.5.2005 as leave without allowance is incorrect. 3. Ext.P1 is the judgment of the Criminal Court. In para 9 thereof it is stated that " there is no evidence to show that the accused had committed the alleged offence beyond the reasonable doubt." Proeeding further, it is stated that, "so the prosecution has failed to establish a case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. So the points are answered WP(c).No.31138/2007 3 against the prosecution". A reading of the preceding paragraph of the judgment also shows that the court has discussed the entire evidence and was not satisfied that the prosecution had succeed in proving the offence against the accused and and it was therefore the court extended the benefit of doubt to the petitioner. On a reading of the judgment I am satisfied that acquittal by Ext.P1 is not an honorable one. If that be so Exts.P3 and P5 should be sustained and the writ petition is only to be dismissed. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(c).No.31138/2007 4 WP(c).No.31138/2007 5