THAMI Vs. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) While the petitioner was working as the permanent Headmaster of an aided lower primary school by name A.M.L.P.S., Perumpadappa, the Manager of the institution placed him under suspension for a period of 14 days by an order passed on the 16th January, 1967. The Manager forwarded a copy of the suspension order to the Assistant Educational Officer and requested for permission to keep the petitioner under suspension beyond the period of 15 days under sub-r.(7) of R.67 of Chap.14(A) of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959. The Assistant Educational Officer, Valapad the 1st respondent conducted a preliminary inquiry and came to the conclusion that there was no prima facie case against the petitioner warranting his being placed under suspension. He, therefore, passed orders on the 27th January, 1967 directing the Manager to reinstate the petitioner as the Headmaster of the school. By a separate order passed on 28-1-1967 the 1st respondent refused permission to the Manager to keep the petitioner under suspension beyond 15 days. This communication also contained a direction to the Manager to reinstate the petitioner with immediate effect. The Manager of the School challenged the said order of the Assistant Educational Officer by filing O. P. No. 324 of 1967 before this Court. That writ petition was disposed of by this court by judgment dated 31-5-1967 a direction to the 2nd respondent, namely the District Educational Officer to conduct an inquiry into the charges against the petitioner and to pass appropriate consequential orders in the light of the finding which may be arrived at as a result of the said inquiry. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent conducted a detailed inquiry against the petitioner and came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not guilty of any of the charges levelled against him. In view of the said finding the 2nd respondent passed orders on 1-7-1967 directing the Manager of the school to reinstate the petitioner forth with to the post of Headmaster.

(2.) Thereupon, the Manager of the school approached this Court again by filing O. P. No. 2135 of 1967 challenging the order passed by the 2nd respondent That writ petition was dismissed by this Court in April, 1970. All through this time the petitioner has been kept out of duty in the school by the Manager notwithstanding the orders passed by the Assistant Educational Officer and by the 2nd respondent directing his immediate reinstatement but the salary and allowances were being disbursed to him by the department on the strength of the provision contained in R.67(7).

(3.) In the meantime, the 2nd respondent addressed the communication Ex. P6 to the 1st respondent informing the latter that since the petitioner was not actually performing the duties of Headmaster he need not be paid the supervision allowance attached to the Headmaster's post. The petitioner appears to have made representations to the Regional Deputy Director of Public Instruction on 7-9-1968 complaining against the directions so issued by the 2nd respondent, That was followed up by another representation evidenced by Ex. P7 dated 13-9-1968 which the petitioner submitted to the Regional Deputy Director through the Assistant Educational Officer. According to the petitioner, no reply has so far been given to him by the Regional Deputy Director to either of those representations. While matters stood thus, the 1st respondent by his letter Ex. P8 dated 12-5-'69 called upon the petitioner to refund an amount of Rs. 446.60 as being excess emoluments paid to him within ten days of the receipt of the said communication failing which it will be recovered from the petitioner, pay in nine instalments commencing with his pay bill for May, 1969. It is stated in Ex.P8 that an amount of Rs. 174.85 was liable to be recovered from the petitioner by way of Headmaster's allowance paid to him from 16-1-1967 to 30-6-1968 & that a further sum of Rs. 487.75 is to be recovered by way of excess dearness allowance disbursed to him calculating the dearness allowance at enhanced rates wrongly taking into account the amount of Headmaster's allowance also for the period from 16-1-'67 to 30-6-1968. It is also mentioned in Ex. P8 that an arrear claim which was due to the petitioner amounting to Rs. 216/- stood adjusted against the aforesaid liability and that the amount of Rs. 446.60 which was directed thereunder to be refunded had been arrived at after making such adjustment. The letter Ex. P6 dated 13-7-1968 sent by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent is relied on in Ex. P8 as the authority for directing recovery of the Headmaster's allowance.