IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 28TH MARCH 2011 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 15100 of 2007(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. K.A. SOSAMMA, TEACHER-IN-CHARGE, FR.JOSEPH MEMORIAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PUTHUPADY, MUVATTUPUZHA. 2. MEERA KOOTHOOR, U.P.S.A., FR.JOSEPH MEMORIAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PUTHUPADY, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOTHAMANGALAM. 3. THE MANAGER, FR.JOSEPH MEMORIAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PUTHUPADY, MUVATTUPUZHA. 4. DR.P.V.JOSEPH, XIX/256, PUKKUNEL HOUSE, P.O. PUTHUPADY, MUVATTUPUZHA-686 673. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.V.MANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/03/2011, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 23182 OF 2007 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). No. 15100/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.7.12.06 BY THE DPI. P2. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.23.12.06. P3. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C). No. 632/07 OF THIS COURT. P4. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.8.12.06 BY R2. P5. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.16.1.06 BY R2. P6. COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD.20.3.07 BY THE HEADMASTER OF THE SCHOOL. P7. COPY OF THE REPLY DTD.29.3.07 BY P1. P8. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.16.1.07 BY R2. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).Nos.15100 & 23182 of 2007 ================== Dated this the 28th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T W.P.(C).No.15100/2007 is filed by two teachers of the Fr. Joseph Memorial Higher Secondary School, Puthupady, seeking payment of salary for the months of December, 2006, and January, February and March 2007, in respect of the 1st petitioner and the salary for the months of January, February, March and April, 2007, in respect of the 2nd petitioner. They were suspended from service with effect from 2.1.2007 and they continued under suspension till 16.1.2007 and thereafter, pursuant to a direction of the educational officer, they were reinstated in service. Subsequently, the 1st petitioner retired from service on 30.6.2007. After retirement, she was served with an order dated 28.6.2007 imposing on her the punishment of barring of two increments without cumulative effect, which was served on the 1st petitioner only on 4.7.2007. W.P.(C).No. 23182/2007 is filed by the 1st petitioner in the other writ petition challenging the order of punishment. I shall refer to the ranks of the parties as obtaining in W.P.(C).No. 15100/2007. 2. Disciplinary proceedings are challenged on the ground that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the 4th respondent in W.P.(C).No.15100/2007, who was not the approved manager at the w.p.c.15100/07 & cc 2 relevant time. 3. The 4th respondent-manager who suspended the petitioners in W.P.(C).No.15100/2007, and who is the 5th respondent in the other writ petition, has not chosen to enter appearance to contest the matter. 4. In W.P.(C).No.15100/2007 I passed the following interim order on 4.2.2008: “Admit. Issue notice. The complaint of the petitioners in this writ petition is that although their appointments have been approved, no salary is being paid to the petitioners on account of the suspension and later reinstatement of the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the first petitioner has already retired from service. In the above circumstances, I direct the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on the question of the disbursal of salary of the petitioners within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 5. It is now submitted that the salary for the periods other than for the period from 2.1.2007 to 16.1.2007, during which period, the petitioners were under suspension, has already been disbursed. It is further submitted that although Ext.P10 order of punishment in W.P. (C).No.23182/2007 has been served on the 1st petitioner, the same was issued without any enquiry, that too, after retirement of the 1st petitioner. Against the 2nd petitioner in W.P.(C).No.15100/2007, not even a charge memo has been issued yet. It is also submitted that the w.p.c.15100/07 & cc 3 present manager of the school is the husband of the 2nd petitioner in W.P.(C).No.15100/2007, who is prepared to close further proceedings, but is awaiting orders in these writ petitions. 6. The petitioners in these two writ petitions seek the following reliefs: W.P.(C).No. 15100/2007: “i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing respondents 1 to 3 to disburse the salary of the first petitioner for the months of December, 2006 and January, February, March and April, 2007 and the salary of the second petitioner for the months of January, February, March and April, 2007 respectively forthwith; ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order declaring that the action of respondents 1 to 3 in not disbursing the salary legitimately due to the petitioners is absolutely illegal and violative of Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents to give 9% interest on the arrears of salary due to the petitioners forthwith for the delayed payment.” W.P.(C).No. 23182/2007: “i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for the records leading to Ext.P10 and quashing the same. ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order declaring that Ext.P10 order is void and non- est in the eye of law.” 7. As far as the 1st petitioner in W.P.(C).No.15100/2007 is concerned, she has already retired from service. Ext.P10 order in W.P. (C).No.23182/2007 imposing on her the punishment of barring w.p.c.15100/07 & cc 4 increments was served on her after her retirement. Even assuming that the disciplinary proceedings can be continued even after retirement under Rule 3 of Part II of KSR, that can only be for reduction in pension or for recovery of any loss caused to the Government. After retirement the question of imposing on the 1st petitioner the punishment of barring of increments does not arise. Even otherwise, Ext.P10 order does not state that it was issued pursuant to an enquiry by the educational officer finding the 1st petitioner guilty of any misconduct, as stipulated in the Kerala Education Rules, without which, the manager could not have imposed on the 1st petitioner any such punishment. Therefore, Ext.P10 order in W.P.(C).No. 23182/2007 is clearly unsustainable. Accordingly, Ext.P10 order in W.P.(C).No. 23182/2007 is quashed. 8. Once the disciplinary proceedings have been quashed, then the suspension of the 1st petitioner is also unsustainable. Consequently, the 1st petitioner has become eligible for getting salary for the period from 2.1.2007 to 16.1.2007 after deducting the subsistence allowance, if any, paid to her. Accordingly, there would be a direction to the respondents in W.P.(C).No.15100/2007 to see that the salary due to the 1st petitioner for the period from 2.1.2007 to 16.1.2007 is paid to the 1st petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at w.p.c.15100/07 & cc 5 any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Since the disciplinary proceedings have been quashed and the person who has passed Ext.P10 order in W.P.(C). No.23182/2007 is no longer the manager, respondents 1 and 2 shall see that the retirement benefits due to the 1st petitioner are disbursed to her, after refixing the salary of the 1st petitioner without reference to the disciplinary proceedings and Ext.P10 in W.P.(C).No.23182/2007, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. However, I make it clear that if on account of the said order, any loss has been caused to the Government, the same shall be recovered from the 4th respondent in W.P.(C).No.15100/2007, who has initiated disciplinary proceedings and passed Ext.P10 order in W.P.(C).No.23182/2007. 9. As far as the 2nd petitioner is concerned, no disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against her till date pursuant to her suspension. It is further submitted before me that she is the wife of the present manager and the present manager has no intention to take any disciplinary action against the 2nd petitioner. The present manager is also impleaded as the 4th respondent in W.P.(C).No. 23182/2007 and he has not chosen to enter appearance. Nobody disputes the said statement of the learned counsel for the petitioners. w.p.c.15100/07 & cc 6 In the above circumstances, the 2nd petitioner also shall be paid salary for the period from 2.1.2007 to 16.1.2007, after deducting the subsistence allowance, if any, paid to her, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The writ petitions are disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge