DINESH KUMAR K Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned writ petitions are materially connected in respect of suspension of the petitioner from service and seeking disbursement of salary to the petitioner at the revised scale of pay, respectively. Therefore, I heard them together and propose to deliver this common judgment. Facts and documents contained in W.P.(C) No.2591 of 2011 are relied upon for the disposal of the writ petitions.

(2.) Petitioner is a teacher suspended from service, evident from Ext.P17. Apart from challenging Ext.P17, petitioner also challenges the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him by the 5th respondent, Manager. Petitioner availed leave from 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2011. Ext.P1 is the request for leave. According to the petitioner, he actually availed leave from 01.04.2006 to 01.06.2008, evident from Ext.P2 order sanctioning the leave. Ext.P2 would go to show that leave for the period from 01.04.2006 to 31.12.2010 was sanctioned. Therefore, petitioner requested for cancellation of the un-availed portion of leave from 02.06.2008 to 31.12.2010. The said request was granted as per Ext.P3. In the meantime, another teacher viz., T.P.Mohandas made a complaint, evident from Ext.P4, alleging that the petitioner was abroad for the period from 06.05.2006 to 15.06.2006. The allegation is that, at that time, Ext.P2 leave sanctioning order was not issued. Since Ext.P2 is dated 15.06.2006, even though the leave was sanctioned for the said period also as per Ext.P2, and though the said period was actually vacation, a technical allegation is raised that petitioner went abroad before issuance of Ext.P2.

(3.) As a matter of fact, petitioner joined duty on 02.06.2008, and he has been continuing in the school since then on the basis of Ext.P3. However, according to the petitioner, being ill-advised, petitioner approached the A.E.O, D.E.O and the Government seeking regularization of the period from 06.05.2006 to 15.06.2006, and in fact, such regularization is not required and petitioner committed the mistake of sending request to the Educational authorities and the Government. Thus accordingly, it gave rise to disciplinary action against the petitioner, and it was thereupon that petitioner is suspended as per Ext.P17. Exts.P18 and P19 are disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, which according to the petitioner, is on the basis of unfounded allegations.