The petitioner is the Manager of an aided Lower Primary School. On 22.7.2002 he had suspended 3 teachers working in the school, invoking powers under Rule 67 of Chapter XIV A KER. The Educational Officer permitted continuance of the suspension beyond 15 days as per an initial order passed on 5.8.2002. The suspension was based on an order passed by the Family Court in which there was an observation regarding adulterous life lead by the teachers who were suspended. This court had stayed operation of the order of the Family Court filed by the teachers concerned. When request made by the teachers to cancel the order permitting continuance of suspension beyond 15 days was not considered, two of them had approached this court in a writ petition. This court directed the Educational Officer to consider the representation of the teachers in the light of the stay order issued by this court against the order of the Family Court. Consequently the Assistant Educational Officer conducted a fresh enquiry and passed an order cancelling extension of the period of suspension beyond 15 days and the petitioner was directed to reinstate the teachers with immediate effect. The petitioner challenged the said order before this court in a writ petition. This court quashed the order passed by the Assistant Educational Officer and remitted the matter for a fresh decision, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the teachers concerned. Thereafter the Educational Officer passed a fresh order on 7.3.2003 directing the petitioner to reinstate the teachers in service with immediate effect. Ext.P1 is the said order issued by the 3rd respondent. Appeal filed by the petitioner against Ext.P1 was rejected by the 2nd respondent as per Ext.P4 order, dated 21.2.2004. A revision filed further before the Government was also rejected through an order dated 30.9.2004. Since the petitioner failed to reinstate the teachers despite the above orders, the 3rd respondent had issued specific orders under Rule 67(8A) of Chapter XIV A KER directing disbursal of pay and allowance to the teachers. 2. Meanwhile, in the enquiry conducted by the 3rd respondent based on the suspension the teachers were not found guilty of the charges as per Ext.P2 order. Eventhough the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 revision petition before the Government it was not considered. Therefore the petitioner further submitted Ext.P6 representation. In the meanwhile the 3rd respondent had issued Ext.P7 notice requiring the petitioner to make payment of a sum of Rs.1,84,943/- being salary to be paid to two of the teachers suspended from duty for the period from 16.10.2004, till they were reinstated, alleging that the a Government had expended the said amount without any benefit. Thereafter the 3rd respondent issued another proceedings as per Ext.P9 requiring the petitioner to remit a sum of Rs.4,25,807/- being the amount of salary and allowances paid to the above said two teachers from the said date of 16.10.2002 till they were reinstated. Against the said orders the petitioner had approached the Government in Ext.P10 representation. The Government through Ext.P11 disposed of Ext.P3 revision petition as well as Exts.P6 and P10 representations through Ext.P11 proceedings. It was observed that as per Rule 7(4) of Chapter IV KER loss to teachers or Government sustained due to action of the Manager can be recovered from the Manager under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. It is stated that in the case of suspension of teachers, framing cooked up and frivolous charges, keeping them out of service beyond 15 days, disobeying orders for reinstatement passed by the Educational Authority under Rule 67(8), by depriving such incumbents of their salary for which they would have been entitled had they been reinstated in compliance of such orders issued by the Educational Officers, are liable to be recovered as loss. Hence the 3rd respondent was directed to take action against the petitioner on the basis of Rule 7 (4)(c) of Chapter III KER. It is aggrieved by Ext.P11 this writ petition is filed.
3. Rule 67(8) of Chapter XIV A KER provides that, if the Educational Officer on a primary enquiry is satisfied that there was no valid grounds for the suspension, can direct the Manager to reinstate the teacher with effect from the date of suspension and when such direction is issued the Manager is bound to reinstate the teacher. It provides that if the teacher is not actually reinstated he shall be deemed to have been on duty. It shall then be open to the department to disburse the pay and allowance to the teacher as if he were not suspended and recover the said amount so disbursed from the Manager. Sub Rule (8A) of Rule 67 provides that the authority permitted the suspension beyond 15 days is entitled to review such permission and if it is satisfied that the teacher under suspension has to be reinstated may cancel the permission already ordered under Sub Rule 8 and to direct the Manager to reinstate the teacher in service. On passing of such order the Manager is bound to reinstate the teacher forthwith, failing which provisions under Sub Rule 8 will apply in such cases also. It is pertinent to note that there was no order passed by the Educational Officer to the effect of directing recovery of the amount of salary paid till the actual reinstatement. On the other hand Exts.P7 and P9 are issued on the basis that the salary paid to the teachers during the relevant period has not in any manner benefited to the Government. In Ext.P11 impugned order the Government have directed the Educational Officer to take steps under Rule 7(4) of Chapter III. Rule 7(4) enables recovery of loss sustained to teachers or Government from the Manager under the provisions of Revenue Recovery Act in specific cases mentioned under sub Clause (a) to (d) of Sub Rule 4 of Rule 7. Sub Rule 4(c) provides that such loss can be recovered in case suspension of teachers by framing cooked up or frivolous charges and keeping them out of service beyond 15 days disobeying orders of reinstatement under Sub Rule 8 of Rule 67 of Chapter XIV A and thereby depriving such incumbents of their salary for which they would have been entitled had they been reinstated in accordance with the directions. In the case at hand the teachers concerned were not deprived of salary because of the order passed under Rule 67(8A). Hence it is evident that no loss was sustained due to deprivation of salary due to the incumbent teachers based on any action taken by the petitioner. On the other hand whether it is liable to recover the salary paid to the teachers from the petitioner invoking Rule 67(8) and (8A) was not seen considered.
4. Under the above mentioned circumstances this court is of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the 1st respondent, with ample opportunity afforded to the petitioner to raise all contentions. Therefore Ext.P11 order of the Government is hereby quashed and the 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the matter and to pass fresh orders after affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Fresh orders in this regard shall be issued taking note of the observations contained herein above, at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
SKV