Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS THURSDAY, THE29H DAY OF MAY20148TH JYAISHTA, 1936 WA.No. 429 of 2014 () IN WP(C).30301/2012 ------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
IN WP(C) 30301/2012 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED2811.13 APPELLANT(S)/3RD RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------ THE MANAGER AIDED U.P.SCHOOL, MOOLAMCODE, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS1 2, 4 & 5: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.V.SYLAJA W/O.M.K.PARAMESWARAN, HEADMISTRESS, AIDED U.P.SCHOOL MOOLAMCODE, PALAKKAD, 678 684 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION PALAKKAD, 678 001 3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER ALATHUR, PALAKKAD, 678 541.
4. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, - 695 001 5. E.A.HYRUNEESA ARABIC TEACHER, AIDED U.P.SCHOOL, MOOLAMCODE RESIDING AT PAVOOR HOUSE, POONIPPADAM KOZHAKKAMCHERRY P.O., PALAKKAD, 678 684 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.K.ABOOBACKER R1 BY SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2905-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC & ALEXANDER THOMAS, JJ.
================== W.A.No. 429 of 2014 ================== Dated this the 29th day of May, 2014
JUDGMENT
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2, 3 and 4, and the learned counsel for the 5th respondent.
2. This appeal is filed by the 3rd respondent in W.P.(C).No. 30301/2012. The Writ Petition was filed by the 1st respondent herein, challenging Ext.P9, whereby she was suspended from service by the appellant-manager and Ext.P13, whereby the suspension was ordered to be continued beyond 15 days. By the judgment under appeal, the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition and set aside the impugned orders and directed the appellant to forthwith reinstate the 1st respondent in service. It was further ordered that the appellant shall issue appropriate orders regularising the period of suspension of the 1st respondent within one month from the date W.A.429/14 - :
2. :- of receipt of a copy of the judgment and the competent authority among the respondents in the Writ Petition was also ordered to draw and disburse the pay revision benefits to the additional 5th respondent. It is this judgment, which is under challenge before us.
3. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that his grievance is only regarding the direction of the learned Single Judge requiring the appellant to issue appropriate orders regularising the period of suspension within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. According to the learned counsel, since the appellant is entitled to continue the disciplinary action against the 1st respondent, the question of regularisation of the period of suspension will depend upon the outcome of the enquiry and the ultimate punishment, if any, that would be imposed on the 1st respondent. Therefore, he says that, at this stage, he cannot be compelled to regularise the period of suspension.
4. Although this contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was sought to be disputed by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-petitioner, we feel that the submission made by the appellant is justified. The judgment does not in any manner W.A.429/14 - :
3. :- interfere with the right of the disciplinary authority to continue the disciplinary action. In such a situation, the question as to the manner, in which, the service subsequent to the misconduct is to be treated, is a matter depending upon the outcome of the disciplinary action including the nature of the punishment that may be imposed on the delinquent. In such circumstance, it was premature for the learned Single Judge to direct that the appellant shall issue orders regularising the period of suspension of the 1st respondent. We, therefore, dispose of this writ appeal vacating the direction of the learned Single Judge requiring the appellant to issue orders regularising the period of suspension and direct that orders regulating the service of the 1st respondent including the period of suspension are to be issued, on the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings against the 1st respondent.
5. In order to give an early quietus to the dispute between the parties, we also direct the appellant, who has already reinstated the 1st respondent, to complete the disciplinary action against the 1st respondent, at any rate within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. We make it clear that we have not expressed anything on the merits of the dispute between the W.A.429/14 - :
4. :- parties and it would be open to the 1st respondent to urge all contentions, which are available to her in the disciplinary action. It is clarified that except the direction of the learned Single Judge to regularise the period of suspension of the 1st respondent, all the other directions and findings in the judgment will remain undisturbed. Writ appeal is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Sd/- sdk+ ALEXANDER THOMAS , JUDGE ///True copy/// P.S. to Judge W.A.429/14 - :
5. :-