T J THOMAS Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was working as a Junior Superintendent in the office of the first respondent. He sought voluntary retirement with effect from 25.6.2000 by submitting Ext.P3 application. It was not immediately accepted and he sought instructions from the higher authority. The second respondent by Ext.P3 order suspended the petitioner from service alleging unauthorised absence. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated by Ext.P6 Charge Memo dated 30.7.2001. Thereafter by Ext.P9, the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated in service after imposing a minor punishment of censure. According to the petitioner, he sought reinstatement, but it was not allowed. However, this is disputed by the respondents. Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P15. During the course of the suspension, petitioner was paid subsistence allowance in accordance with the Rules. By Ext.P15, an amount of Rs. 57,705/- is shown as the liability and that was recovered from the DCRG. Petitioner was paid DCRG less the amount of Rs. 57,705/-. Petitioner also complains about non-payment of the Group Insurance Policy amount.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed disputing the allegations. It is stated therein that the petitioner was in the habit of leaving on office hours without permission and action was taken. It is stated that in view of the fact that the petitioner was allowed to voluntarily retire from 25.5.2000 accepting his application, the amount of subsistence allowance paid after that date can only be treated as a liability against him and, therefore, Ext.P15 order is only to be sustained. As far as the complaint regarding delay in payment of Group Insurance, it is stated as follows:

(3.) The allegation that the petitioner has not responded so far, is disputed in the reply affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P15 order is bad as no notice was issued to the petitioner before Ext.P15 order was issued. He also submits that the amount shown as liability is actually the amount received by him as subsistence allowance during the period he was under suspension, and such an amount can by no stretch of imagination be recovered back treating it as a liability. I am inclined to accept the said contention. The amount of Rs. 57,705/- mentioned in Ext.P15 represents the amount paid to the petitioner when he was placed under suspension. Subsistence allowance was paid under the Rules to enable the employee concerned to subsist. The disciplinary proceedings commenced against him ended with the petitioner being reinstated. But, during the said period the petitioner was without any volition on his part, placed under suspension. The amount thus paid to him in accordance with the Rules and which he apparently would have spent, cannot be directed to be recovered as liability. Accordingly, Ext.P15 is unsustainable and it is quashed. The amount of Rs. 57,705/- recovered from the petitioner covered by Ext.P15 shall be paid back to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. As far as the amount covered by the Group Insurance Scheme, there will be a direction to the first respondent to expedite the proceedings and the amount due to the petitioner shall be paid to him without any delay and at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.