IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2011 / 13TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 171 of 2010(V) ----------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- BALAKRISHNAN M., AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.T.T.UNNI, U.P.S.A., S.R.U.P.SCHOOL, KUNISSERY, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PALAKKAD. 4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD. 5. THE MANAGER, S.R.U.P.SCHOOL, KUNISSERY, PALAKKAD. 6. HEADMASTER, S.R.U.P.SCHOOL, KUNISSERY, PALAKKAD. BY ADVS. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN FOR R5 AND R6 SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA FOR R5 AND R6 SMT. NISHA BOSE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 TO R4. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.171/2010 A P P E N D I X PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 : COPY OF ORDER DTD. 27.1.00. EXT. P2 : COPY OF ORDER OF Assistant Educational Officer DTD. 9.2.00. EXT. P3 : COPY OF G.O.(Rt) 3010/2000/GE DTD. 25.9.00. EXT. P3(a) : COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF MANAGER DTD. 21.10.00. EXT. P4 : COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF Assistant Educational Officer DTD. 20.9.03. EXT. P5 : COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF Assistant Educational Officer DTD. 27.1.04. EXT. P6 : COPY OF ENDT.No.415/00/AEO DTD. 2.9.06. EXT. P7 : COPY OF G.O.(Rt) No.2375/08/G.EDN. DTD.27.5.08. EXT. P8 : COPY OF ORDER No.DP/MB/2008 DTD. 8.8.08. EXT. P9 : COPY OF REVISION PETITION FILED BY PETITIONER. EXT. P10 : COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 24283/07 OF THIS COURT. EXT. P11 : COPY OF G.O.(Rt) No.4521/09/G.EDN DTD. 30.10.09. 5TH RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT. R5(a) : COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DTD. 21.7.08 ISSUED TO PETITIONER. EXT. R5(b) : COPY OF REPLY DTD. 2.8.08 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER. EXT. R5(c) : COPY OF ORDER DTD. 8.8.08. // True Copy // P.A. to Judge. smp T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.171 Of 2010-V -------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF AUGUST, 2011 J U D G M E N T Aggrieved by Exhibit P11 order passed by the Government, this Writ Petition is filed. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the revision petition filed by the petitioner, namely Exhibit P9 was concerning the challenge against the order passed by the Manager as per Exhibit P8 whereby the Manager ordered that the period from 27.1.2000 to 23.10.2000 will be regularised as 'eligible leave' as per the relevant rules stating that he was under suspension on valid ground. This Court by Exhibit P10 judgment directed the Government to pass appropriate orders, after noticing that only a minor punishment of censure was imposed on him for not abiding the instructions of the Headmaster. 3. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in Exhibit P11 order what is considered by the W.P.(C)No.171/10 -2- Government is only the validity of the punishment which was actually not a matter to be decided by the Government at this stage. 4. Therefore, for the purpose of disposal of this Writ Petition, I will refer to the bare facts. 5. The petitioner, while was working as Upper Primary School Assistant in the S.R.U.P.School, Kunissery, Palakkad, by Exhibit P1 order dated 27.1.2000 he was suspended. The Assistant Educational Officer by Exhibit P2, after conducting a preliminary investigation refused to grant permission for grant of continued suspension and directed reinstatement of the petitioner. This was ordered under Rule 67(8) of Chapter XIV-A KER and the direction was to reinstate him forthwith. 6. It appears that the Manager without reinstating the teacher challenged the same in a revision petition and the Government rejected the revision petition as per Exhibit P3 order. The petitioner was reinstated in the light of Exhibit P3 order, by W.P.(C)No.171/10 -3- the Manager on 21.10.2000. 7. Exhibit P4 is the order passed by the Assistant Educational Officer refusing the grant of sanction for imposing a penalty of withholding of next three increments without cumulative effect. The re-proposal given by the Manager to impose the punishment withholding one annual increment without cumulative effect was also refused by Exhibit P5. Challenging the same, the Manager approached the Government and by Exhibit P7 the Government awarded a minor punishment of censure for not abiding the instructions of the Headmaster. It is after that Exhibit P8, the Manager issued a detailed order to treat the period from the date of suspension till the date of reinstatement as eligible leave. 8. In Exhibit P9 revision petition, the prayer is to treat the period of suspension from 27.1.2000 to 23.10.2000 as duty for all purposes and to disburse all pay and allowances for the said period along with other consequential benefits. W.P.(C)No.171/10 -4- 9. In the operative portion of the order issued by the Government as per Exhibit P11 what is stated is that “Government found that the orders issued by the Government as per G.O.(Rt)No.2375/08/GE. dated 27.5.2008 are in order. There is no specific or special reason to change the Government decision. Therefore the petition dated 6.9.2008 submitted by the petitioner before the Government (Ext.P11) is rejected”. 10. Actually, the Government order mentioned therein is Exhibit P7 by which the punishment proposed was modified as one of censure by the Government itself. It appears that the Government while issuing the order Exhibit P11 was of the view that the said order does not require a reconsideration. The petitioner's revision petition Exhibit P9 was not in respect of the said Government Order. Challenge was in respect of Exhibit P8 proceedings of the Manager treating the period during which he was kept out of duty as eligible leave. Evidently, in Exhibit P11, no finding has been rendered with regard to the challenge against W.P.(C)No.171/10 -5- the said order. Therefore the matter will have to be reconsidered by the Government. 11. In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the light of Rule 67(8) of Chapter XIV-A KER, on the refusal of the Assistant Educational Officer to grant permission for the continued suspension, the teacher will be deemed to be in duty. He will also be entitled for payment of salary. It is therefore submitted that the Manager cannot treat the said period as eligible leave as herein it was due to the refusal of the Manager to reinstate the petitioner in service, that he was kept out of duty. It is also submitted that actually, the period of suspension was only from 27.1.2000 for 15 days and even in the order by which the Assistant Educational Officer directed reinstatement, the reinstatement is given effect from 27.1.2000. Therefore it is submitted that the legal effect of Rule 67(8) cannot be whittled down by the Manager by treating the entire period from 27.1.2000 till the date on which the petitioner W.P.(C)No.171/10 -6- was reinstated as suspension and eligible leave, because the Manager was really found fault with for not reinstating the petitioner. 12. The learned counsel for the Manager submitted that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner before passing Exhibit P8 order and no objection was given. 13. All these are matters for the Government to consider. Therefore, Exhibit P11 is quashed. There will be a direction to the Government to pass appropriate orders after hearing both parties within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and the claims of the petitioner for various benefits in terms of Rule 67(8) of Chapter XIV-A of KER will be considered. The Writ Petition is allowed as above. No costs. Sd/-(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) dsn