BEEVI UMMA S. Vs. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, TRIVANDRUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is a senior citizen and is an individual educational agency as provided in the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (for brevity 'KER'); challenges Exts. P4 and P9 orders passed by the Government. Ext. P4 is a direction to remit Rs. 3,53,652/ - being loss sustained to Government on account of payment of salary to Sri. T. Abhilash for the illegal suspension period. Ext. P9 is a revenue recovery notice issued on the said liability. The brief facts to be noticed are that the petitioner is an individual educational agency carrying on the aided school, MPM LPS, Killy, Kollode P.O. The petitioner had, by due authorisation, under Rule 3 of Chapter III of KER appointed her husband as the Manager of the School. While the petitioner's husband was continuing as the Manager, the 5th respondent, an LPSA was suspended on 03/01/1998. Allegedly on the basis of an enquiry report, the Manager discharged the 5th respondent, who was said to be on probation at that point of time, on 11/02/1999. The AEO refused to approve the discharge and directed reinstatement of the 5th respondent on 28/03/2001.

(2.) The admitted case is that the Manager had availed of all the statutory remedies and eventually this Court permitted the Manager to continue with the disciplinary proceedings, but, however, specifically directed the reinstatement of the 5th respondent. The Manager was recalcitrant insofar as carrying out the reinstatement and proceedings were initiated under Rule 7 of Chapter III of KER, by which, the Deputy Director disqualified the Manager and the AEO was given charge of the Manager. The AEO reinstated the 5th respondent on 06/02/2003.

(3.) On 15/02/2003 the petitioner sought approval of appointment of a new Manager. Ext. P3 order was passed on 20/10/2004 rejecting the petitioner's representation, on the ground that there was a liability pending against the Manager, which the educational agency had to satisfy. By Ext. P4 notice dated 02/12/2004 an amount of Rs. 3,53,652/ - was mulcted on the Manager and the petitioner who was the educational agency was required to satisfy the same. The liability as is seen from Ext. P4, was with respect to the period in which the 5th respondent was kept under illegal suspension.