STATE OF KERALA Vs. K. BUSHARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeals are filed by the State against a common judgment in two writ petitions. WP(C) No. 22470 of 2009 was filed by the Manager of an aided School challenging Ext. P9 order of the Deputy Director of Education [for brevity, 'the DDE'] as confirmed by the Government in revision by Ext. P11. The impugned orders directed reinstatement of the Headmistress [HM] of the School, who was suspended by the Manager.

(2.) WP(C) No. 31846 of 2015 was filed by the HM seeking reinstatement w.e.f. 30.04.2008, the date on which she was suspended. The learned Single Judge, looking at the various aspects, rejected the writ petition of the Manager. The HM was found to be entitled to all benefits of reinstatement w.e.f. 30.04.2008, including monetary benefits, treating the entire period as duty. The State is aggrieved by the fact that the learned Single Judge specifically declined the monetary benefits granted to the HM to be recovered from the Manager.

(3.) The learned Government Pleader points out that the Manager and the HM were relatives and that on 24.09.2007 the Manager had suspended the HM on charges of misappropriation of funds in the Noon-Meal Scheme. After statutory process and resultant litigation, the Manager reinstated the HM on 27.03.2008. On 30.04.2008 she was again suspended on the ground that two criminal cases were registered against her. The de-facto complainants in the criminal case were two strangers to the School. It is the contention of the learned Government Pleader that it is very evident that the criminal cases were foisted at the instigation of the Manager. True, the suspension was allowed to be continued by the Assistant Educational Officer [for brevity, 'the AEO'], but the DDE, by order dated 13.05.2009, directed reinstatement. In such circumstances, the Manager, having not reinstated the HM immediately after 13.05.2009, was obliged to make good the monetary benefits to the teacher atleast from the date of Ext. P9 order. Rule 7 of Chapter III of the Kerala Educational Rules, 1959 [for brevity, 'the KER'] is specifically pointed out to advance the above contention.