K. Sabitha vs Manager Aup School And Ors

A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J

As both these writ appeals arise from a common judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P (C) Nos.35734/2918 & 39388/2018 they are taken up

together for consideration.

Shorn of unnecessary details, we note that the writ appeals are preferred by one Sabitha who while working as a UPSA, Pilassery Aided U.P.

School was proceeded against in a disciplinary proceedings that culminated in the Manager of the school passing an order against her, proposing a

punishment of removal from service. When the Manager approached the Educational authorities for the necessary sanction for imposing the

punishment, the sanction was refused and the District Educational Officer (DEO) recommended the imposition of a lesser punishment. While a

revision preferred by the Manager challenging the refusal of sanction by the DEO was rejected by the Government, in a writ petition filed by the

Manager thereafter, impugning the said decision of the DEO, as also the rejection order of the Government, this court found that it was not open to the

DEO to suggest the imposition of a lesser punishment and that the limited role of the DEO was either to grant sanction or refuse the sanction sought

by the Manager.

Pursuant to the said judgment of this court the Manager once again considered the issue of punishment and this time around proposed the imposition

of a punishment of compulsory retirement on the teacher. Thereafter, when sanction was sought from the DEO, he once again refused sanction and

hence the Manager was, once again, before the Government through a revision petition against the order of the DEO. The Government also rejected

the revision petition and this led the Manager yet again to approach this court challenging the order of the Government. By Ext.P13 judgment dated

31-01-2018, this court disposed W.P (C) No.33956/2016 preferred by the Manager and also W.P (C) No.39647/2016 filed by the teacher seeking

reinstatement in service by quashing the impugned orders in the writ petition filed by the Manager, and directing the DEO to pass a fresh order on the

request for sanction sought by the Manager. By an order dated 13-03-2018 the DEO once again rejected the request of the Manager for sanction to

impose the punishment of compulsory retirement on the teacher. By the same order the DEO further directed reinstatement of the teacher. The

revision petition filed by the Manager against the said decision was rejected by the Government by Ext.P15 order dated 17-10-2018. The Manager

therefore once again approached this court by filing W.P (C) No.35734/2018 seeking to quash the orders of the DEO and the Government that

rejected his request for imposing the punishment on the teacher and which directed him to reinstate the teacher in question. The teacher also filed

W.P (C) No.39388/2018 seeking reinstatement in service consequent to the decision of the DEO impugned in the connected writ petition of the

Manager.

During the pendency of both the writ petitions there was an attempt at reconciliation, and pursuant to an agreement arrived at between the parties,

this court found that it would be in the interest of all concerned to accommodate the teacher as a Cluster Co-ordinator in a BRC on condition that the

Manager shall not fill up the vacancy of UPSA except by appointing a protected teacher. Consequential directions were therefore issued to the

Deputy Director of Education, Kozhikode to see that the teacher Smt. Sabitha is accommodated as Cluster Co-ordinator in the District in a BRC in

any nearby station, and a further direction was given to the Deputy Director of Education to provide a protected teacher for deployment in the School.

While the said directions in the impugned judgment have since been complied, as evident from the order dated 24-09-2019 of the Deputy Director of

Education, Kozhikode that is produced before this court today, it would appear that the immediate provocation for filing the appeal was the

apprehension of the appellant/teacher that her deputation as a BRC Cluster Co-ordinator would not enable her to receive the salary and allowances

applicable to teachers. While we are at a loss to understand the basis for such an apprehension by the appellant, we are of the view that consequent to

the directions issued by this court in the impugned judgment, and solely on account thereof, the appellant cannot be denied the salary and allowance

that is otherwise due to her in her capacity as a teacher in the school. As regards the further apprehension of the appellant as regards her entitlement

to salary/allowances during the period when she was under suspension, we are of the view that in as much as the writ petition preferred by the

Manager challenging the orders of the DEO and the Government, that directed reinstatement of the teacher in service, was effectively dismissed by

this court while forging out the settlement in the judgment, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the appellant/teacher must be seen as having

concluded in her favour on account of the reinstatement as BRC cluster co-ordinator that was directed by the learned single judge. We therefore

deem it appropriate to simply clarify that the treatment to be accorded to the period of suspension undergone by the teacher shall be as provided under

the Kerala Education Rules. The Manager as well as the Educational authorities shall pass consequential orders regularising the period of suspension

within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.