P.CHANDRAN Vs. A.SHAJAHAN IAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This contempt of court case is filed alleging non compliance with Annexure A1 judgment dated 17.8.2017. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner seeking implementation of the orders of the Director of Public Instructions and the Manager directing his reinstatement as also seeking directions to treat the period of suspension as duty for all purposes. The writ petition was heard along with W.P(C).No.29087 of 2015 filed by the Manager challenging the said orders. After hearing all parties and considering the contentions, this Court found that since the petitioner had already retired from service, the finding of the Director of Public Instructions and the Government that the misconduct alleged against the petitioner was not sufficient to award the penalty of permanent reversion does not require interference. It was held that the petitioner would be entitled to the benefits arising out of the orders of the DPI and the Government and that the period of suspension would have to be regularised. W.P(C).No.29087 of 2015 filed by the Manager was dismissed. The respondents were directed to implement the orders of the DPI and the Government. The 1 st respondent Government was directed to pass orders regularising the period of suspension from 22.8.2012 to 13.11.2013.

(2.) When no orders were passed within the time limit granted, the contempt of court case was moved. However, it appears that a show cause notice was issued on 19.2.2018 to the petitioner intimating continuance of the disciplinary action in terms of Rule 3A of Part III KSR and a tentative decision was taken to reduce Rs.300/- from his monthly pension. The show cause notice was served along with a covering letter of the District Educational Officer dated 5.4.2018. Though a reply was submitted by the petitioner, order dated 20.6.2018 was passed confirming the tentative decision which, according to the petitioner, amounts to clear, grave and continuing contempt of the orders and authority of this Court. Though notice was ordered to the respondents and an impleading petition to implead the person who rendered Annexure VI order was also allowed and notice was taken out to the additionally impleaded 6th respondent, affidavit has been filed only by the 5th respondent stating that it was for the Government to have passed orders and no contempt has been committed by the Manager.

(3.) The learned Government Pleader, defending the Government order, would submit that the petitioner had been proceeded against by the Manager and sanction was also sought for imposing a penalty. The DPI had refused permission to impose the penalty of reversion from the post of Headmaster. This was upheld by the Government. However, it is stated that even though the petitioner retired from service before any penalty could be imposed on him, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him had not been concluded and as such, it was open to the Government to have passed an order in the nature of Annexure V. Reliance is placed on Rule 3A of Part III KSR to contend that in case of proved misconduct, the Government would have the right to order recovery from pension.