IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 24TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 7171 of 2010(V) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- HARI R. VISWANATH., S/O.VISWANATHAN NAIR, AGED 34 YEARS, HSST, SNVHSS, NANKICITY, KANJIKKUZHI,IDUKKI, RESIDING AT KARIANNETHU HOUSE,KOTTATHOOR P.O., AYROOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT FOR HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT FOR HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT FOR HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE MANAGER, SREE NARAYANA HIGHER SECONDRAY SCHOOL. KANJIKKUZHY, IDUKKI, S N D P TALUK UNION OFFICE, THODUPUZHA. 5. THE PRINCIPAL, SREE NARAYANA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,NANKICITY, KANJIKKUZHI, IDUKKI. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.T. MAHMOOD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/09/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.7171/2010-V: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT OF THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. ACD B1/7275/HSE/07 DTD. 30/06/2008 ISSUED BY THE R.2. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 07/07 DTD. 16/07/2008 SERVED TO THE PETITIONER ON 24/07/2008. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE APPEAL DTD. 10/09/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.2. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. ACD.B1/7275/HSE/2007 DTD. 09/02/2009. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT ALONG WITH THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.7171 OF 2010 ------------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as Higher Secondary School Teacher in Computer Science in Sree Narayana Higher Secondary School, Kanjikkuzhi, Idukki. The fourth respondent Manager initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. The petitioner was suspended from service as per the order dated 26.9.2007. The Enquiry Officer found that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are not sustainable. It is stated that he recommended reinstatement of the petitioner as per Ext.P1 report. Based on Ext.P1 report, the Director of Higher Secondary Education passed Ext.P2 order dated 30.6.2008 directing the Manager to reinstate the petitioner. In compliance with Ext.P2, the Manager ordered reinstatement of the petitioner as per Ext.P3 order dated 16.7.2008. However, in Ext.P3, it was mentioned that the period of suspension shall be treated as Leave Without Allowance as per rule 56 of W.P.(C).No.7171 OF 2010 2 Chapter VII Part-I KSR. Against Ext.P3 order, the petitioner filed an appeal to the Director of Higher Secondary Education, who disposed of the appeal as per Ext.P5 order dated 9.2.2009. The operative portion of Ext.P5 reads as follows: “In the circumstance you are directed to exonerate Sri.Hari R.Viswanath, Higher Secondary School Teacher in Computer application of your school from all the allegations levelled against him and treat his suspension period as on duty and he should paid the full pay and allowances to which he would have been eligible had he not been suspended. The suspension period also should be reckoned for his total service and monetary benefits. Report the compliance at the earliest.” 2. It is stated by the petitioner that Ext.P5 order was not implemented by respondents 4 and 5 in spite of repeated demands to the Manager. Ext.P6 is produced to show that one such representation was received by the Manager on 26.10.2009. 3. The relief prayed for by the petitioner is the following: W.P.(C).No.7171 OF 2010 3 “i.Issue a Writ of mandamus or other appropriate order or direction commanding the respondent to implement Exhibit P5 by treating the period of suspension (26.09.2007 to 25.07.2008) as part of duty with all consequential benefits including monetary benefits which he would have been eligible had he not been suspended“ 4. Though notice was served on respondents 4 and 5, they have not chosen to enter appearance. The learned Government Pleader submitted that respondents 4 and 5 are liable to implement Ext.P5 order. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is allowed. Respondents 4 and 5 are hereby directed to implement Ext.P5 order dated 9.2.2009 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall send a copy of the judgment to the respondents 4 and 5 by registered post. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE cms