IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2008 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WA.No. 2328 of 2008 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.31138/2008 Dated 22/10/2008 .................... APPELLANT: -------------- K.M. SATHIANATHAN, L.P.S.A, KULUPPA L.P SCHOOL, MELADY, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. 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 SRI.K.SANDESH RAJA FOR R1 TO T3. ADV.SRI.CIBI THOMAS FOR R4. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JJ. ================================ W.A.No.2328 of 2008 =============================== Dated this the 4th day of December, 2008. J U D G M E N T KOSHY, J. Appellant/petitioner was a teacher in Kuluppa Lower Primary School. He was charge sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 482 IPC. Allegation was that with intention to cheat, appellant/petitioner created bogus seals of BEM.L.P.School, Puthiyangadi and Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Meladi and submitted loan applications falsely before the Kerala State Handloom Development Corporation, purchased textiles for Rs.7,721/- and failed to remit the loan amount. He was charge sheeted in a criminal case. He was suspended on the ground of involvement in the above criminal case. He was acquitted in the criminal case by Ext.P1 judgment. In that case he was given benefit of doubt. In Ext.P1 judgment he was acquitted with the following observations: “So the prosecution has failed to establish a case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and therefore a benefit of doubt should be given to the accused”. W.A.No.2328 of 2008 2 2. The contention of the petitioner is that since prosecution failed to proved the case, he is entitled to full salary during the period of suspension treating it as duty. However, Government has treated the period only as leave without wages as he was only acquitted on benefit of doubt. It is the contention of the petitioner that in another case where a person was honourably exonerated, Government treated his period of suspension as period of duty. It is true that pending criminal enquiry, if he was honourably acquitted, Government can treat the period of suspension as period of duty on facts of each case. In this case, acquittal was only on benefit of doubt. It is the discretion of the employer to decide regarding the period of suspension as pending enquiry. Considering the allegations on the fact that he was acquitted only on giving the benefit of doubt, his suspension period was regularised as leave without wages. We are of the opinion that Government was right in taking such a decision considering Ext.P1 judgment. Hence, we dismiss the appeal. J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE bkn/-