LAWS(KER)-2012-12-264

LEELAMMA M. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Decided On December 05, 2012
Leelamma M. Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KERALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The non -implementation of Ext.P13 order passed by the DPI, directing the Manager to permit the petitioner to rejoin duty without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings, and to cause drawal and disbursal of the eligible benefits payable to her by way of arrears of salary and subsistence allowance, forms the subject matter of challenge in W.P.(C)No.21235/2012, while W.P.(C)No.22585/2012 filed by the Manager of the school seeks to cause disposal of Exts.P2 and P4 representations, which are pending consideration before the first and second respondents in respect of the disciplinary action, which is stated as being pursued. Reference is made to the pleadings and proceedings as given in W.P.(C)No.21235/2012.

(2.) The petitioner was working as Technical School Assistant ( TSA in short) in the third respondent's school and while so, for no sustainable ground, the salary payable to the petitioner for the months of October and November 2010 came to be denied, referring to some W.P.(C)No.21235 and 22585 of 2012 2 loan availed by the petitioner from Syndicate Bank. Met with the situation, the petitioner caused to send a lawyer's notice to the fourth respondent, specifically pointing out that there was no authority at all to the Headmistress to decline disbursement of salary. As nothing turned out in the positive, the petitioner was constrained to approach the Lok Ayukta, by filing a complaint. During the pendency of the complaint as above, Ext.P3 order came to be passed by the second respondent on 16.5.2011 instructing the fourth respondent to effect recovery from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs.5,000/ - per month and to have the same remitted to the Syndicate Bank. Reference was also made to the proceedings dated 25.3.2011 of the Deputy Director. The complaint preferred by the petitioner was finally heard and decided by the Lok Ayukta, passing Ext.P4 order dated 22.08.2011 holding that, there was no authority or provision of law so as to enable the concerned respondents to effect deduction from the salary of the petitioner, merely on the basis of a letter issued by the Bank in this regard. It was accordingly, that Ext.P4 came to be passed giving necessary direction to the concerned respondents not to effect any W.P.(C)No.21235 and 22585 of 2012 3 deduction from the salary of the complainant/petitioner for making payment to the Bank. Based on Ext.P3, the fourth respondent also issued Ext.P5 letter dated 8.6.2011 to cause monthly deduction to the tune of Rs.5,000/ - from the salary of the petitioner and to have it remitted to the Bank concerned. But it was thereafter, that Ext.P4 order came to be passed on 22.08.2011, intercepting such deduction. While so, the petitioner came to be suspended from service as per order dated 10.6.2011 and the departmental authorities, as per order dated 21.06.2011, ratified the suspension and permission was given to have it extended beyond 15 days, till the completion of the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner. This led to Ext.P6 order dated 25/06/2011 passed by the fourth respondent. The petitioner was subsequently served with a memo of charges and statement of allegations, referring to dereliction of duty, disobedience, negligence of duty and non - remittance of the due amount to the Bank. On receipt of Ext.P7, the petitioner submitted Ext.P8 explanation, followed by Ext.P9 and finally, the petitioner came to be served with Ext.P10 show -cause notice proposing to inflict the punishment of dismissal from service, W.P.(C)No.21235 and 22585 of 2012 4 which in turn has been duly replied as per Ext.P11 dated 5.1.2012. The petitioner has also approached the DPI by filing Ext.P12. When the DPI as per Ext.P13 order dated 26/07/2012 directed the third respondent to permit the petitioner to rejoin duty with liberty to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking to implement Ext.P13 and for such other reliefs as mentioned herein before.

(3.) During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the insinuation made against the petitioner as given in Ext.P7 memo of charges and the statement of allegations does not constitute any misconduct at all and the only allegation is that the petitioner has not paid the amount due to the Bank, from where she had availed a loan.