RIBIN K.A. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P21 and P29 orders and for a consequential declaration that the petitioner is entitled for re-instatement with salary and all other benefits from November, 2011 treating his period of suspension as duty for all purposes.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: The petitioner while working as Physical Education Teacher in the school under the management of the 4th respondent was kept under suspension as per Ext.P1 order dtd. 29/11/2011. The said order of suspension was set aside by Ext.P2 judgment in WP(C) No.33894 of 2011. But the petitioner was again suspended on the very same allegation as per Ext.P3 order. The said order of suspension was challenged by the petitioner in WP(C) No.1856 of 2012. While so, disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and an enquiry was conducted, and later Ext.P4 enquiry report was submitted. Thereupon, the 4th respondent submitted a request before the 2nd respondent seeking sanction under Rule 74 of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules to impose a penalty of removal from service on the petitioner. But the same was rejected by the educational authority as per Ext.P5 holding that none of the charges said to be proved are sufficient enough to impose major penalty like removal from service. The said order was challenged by the 4th respondent Manager in revision before the Government and simultaneously issued an order imposing punishment of dismissal of the petitioner, in total violation of Ext.P5 order. Later on, as per Ext.P6 interim order issued in WP(C) No.1856 of 2012 the suspension of the petitioner was revoked as per Ext.P8 order. In the revision filed by the Manager challenging Ext.P5 order the Government issued Ext.P9 order whereby the 4th respondent was permitted to impose major punishment of dismissal from service and the said decision was challenged by the petitioner filing WP(C) No.30422 of 2013, which was allowed as per Ext.P10 order directing the Government to reconsider the matter. Thereupon, orders on Ext.P11 was issued by the Government in which the Government declined to impose major penalty of removal from service. The said order was challenged by the 4th respondent by filing WP(C) No.32772 of 2015. Subsequently, this Court as per Ext.P13 judgment dismissed the said writ petition. Aggrieved by Ext.P13, the 4th respondent preferred W.A.No.2000 of 2017, which was also dismissed as per Ext.P14 order. While so, the petitioner filed WP(C) No.30854 of 2017 seeking a direction to the respondents to re-instate him to service and to disburse the back wages and all consequential benefits and other allowances from November, 2011 onwards. Pursuant to an order passed by this Court the petitioner was paid salary from November, 2011 onwards. Challenging Ext.P14 order the Manager approached the Apex Court filing SLP(C) No.37302 of 2017 which was also dismissed as per Ext.P15. Subsequent to Ext.P15 order the petitioner was re-instated in service w.e.f 7/4/2018. While re-instating the petitioner the 4th respondent as per Ext.P16 order imposed a punishment of barring of 3 increments with cumulative effect. Petitioner challenged Ext.P16 order by filing Ext.P17 appeal before the 2nd respondent. Later on in WOS No.14 of 2013 filed before the Wakf Tribunal, Ernakulam a compromise was arrived at wherein the 4th respondent has undertaken to withdraw the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner and others. Thereafter, a mediation was held at High Court Mediation Center and a compromise agreement was entered wherein the 4th respondent Manager has undertaken to drop all disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner and to withdraw the memo of charges and statement of allegation and also the punishment of barring of 3 increment with cumulative effect. Petitioner submits that based on Ext.P18 compromise agreement all the dispute between the petitioner and the 4th respondent has been settled. Since Ext.P17 appeal was not considered by the 2nd respondent, petitioner approached this Court again and this Court as per Ext.P19 judgment in WP(C) No.36210 of 2018 directed early disposal of the said appeal. Subsequent to the compromise entered, Ext.P20 order was issued by the 4th respondent whereby withdrawing all the allegation against the petitioner as well as Ext.P16 order of punishment. Pursuant to the direction issued in Ext.P19 judgment, the 2nd respondent disposed of the appeal as per Ext.P21 rejecting the claim of the petitioner holding that only the management is responsible for the delay in re-instatement of the petitioner. Challenging the same, Ext.P22 revision was preferred before the Government and pursuant to the direction issued in Ext.P22 judgment in WP(C) No.12494 of 2019, Ext.P24 order has been issued by the Government again declining to regularise the suspension period of the petitioner as duty for all purposes. Ext.P24 was challenged by the petitioner in WP(C) No.10312 of 2020.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to memorandum of settlement agreement that form part of Ext.P18, another teacher by name K.B.Nisam against whom also disciplinary proceedings were initiated and a punishment of barring of 3 increments with cumulative effect was imposed. The said teacher Sri.K.B.Nisam approached this Court filing WP(C) No.39867 of 2018 and pursuant to Ext.P26 judgment, orders were issued by Deputy Director of Higher Secondary Education, Ernakulam whereby granting all benefits including arrears of salary to the said teacher. Petitioner submits that he is similarly situated to the teacher who was granted all the benefits as per Ext.P25. Thereupon, a writ petition was filed as WP(C) No.10312 of 2020 challenging Ext.P24 order and the same was disposed of as per Ext.P27 judgment wherein the Court directed the Government to reconsider the request made by the petitioner for treating the period of suspension as duty and for payment of all benefits for the period in question taking note of Exts.P26 and P27 (Ext.P26 and P25 in this writ petition) and set aside Ext.P25 order (Ext.P24 in this writ petition). Thereafter, hearing was conducted and petitioner submitted Ext.28 argument notes also. But the 1st respondent Government without reconsidering the matter as directed in Ext.P27 judgment and without considering any of the documents and the contentions raised by the petitioner, rejected the claim as per Ext.P29 order. Petitioner submits that Ext.P29 order is in total violation of the directions in Ext.P27judgment.