IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2008 / 12TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 23957 of 2007(B) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- GANGADHARA MARAR.C, RETIRED SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT, 'PRASADAM', PANANGAD P.O., BALUSSERY, KOZHIKODE - 673612. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. NANDAKUMAR FOR R1 & R2. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.23957/2007-B: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE R.2. DTD. 29/03/1989. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. V4/131432/88 DTD. 24/05/1991. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.A.NO.44, 49 AND 50/1997. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 24/04/2007. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. K. DIS.V4/31346/2007/DPI/DTD. 09/07/2007. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// prv. V. GIRI, J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 23957 of 2007 --------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner retired from service on superannuation on 31.5.1997. He challenges Ext.P5 order by which the Director of Public Instruction has rejected his request to treat his suspension period as duty for all purposes. It is directed to be treated as eligible leave for all purposes. 2. The petitioner was placed under suspension from 1.4.1989 to 31.5.1992 in the wake of the registration of a crime registered against him involving offences punishable under the PC Act. The Special Court acquitted the petitioner. Though an appeal was filed before this court, as evidenced by Ext.P3 judgment, the order of acquittal was confirmed. The petitioner preferred Ext.P4 for regularising the period of suspension by treating the period of suspension as duty for all purpose. As noted above, by Ext.P5 the DPI has rejected the same stating that the petitioner has been acquitted from the charges levelled against him but the acquittal is due to failure of prosecution and WPC.23957 /2007 2 he was not fully exonerated from the charges levelled against him. In my view, the issue has to be reconsidered by the DPI for more than one reason. Firstly the petitioner was not heard before the Director passed Ext.P5 order. Secondly, the officer has not considered the specific findings by the trial court and the appellate court, before coming to the conclusion as to whether the employee has been acquitted from the charges in a categoric manner. I do not propose to express any further opinion in this regard in circumstances where I am of the view that the issue ought to be reconsidered by the Director after notice to the petitioner . In the result, Ext.P5 is set aside and the second respondent is directed to pass fresh order on Ext.P4 application after hearing the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment V. GIRI, JUDGE. Pmn/ WPC.23957 /2007 3