V PANCHAVARNAM Vs. ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT ELEMENTARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner joined the service of the second respondent school as Physical Education Teacher on 16.10.1973. THE second respondent is a private school under the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973. While the petitioner was in service, a charge memo was issued on 05.04.2005 making certain allegations. He was placed under suspension by an order dated 25.04.2005. Pending the conclusion of the disciplinary action, he was reinstated in service on 14.03.2006. On reaching the age of superannuation, he was allowed to retire on 31.10.2006. According to the petitioner, he should have been retained in service till the end of academic year 2006-2007. He sought to challenge the retirement made in the middle of the academic year by filing a writ petition and that writ petition was allowed. THE second respondent filed W.A.(MD).No.169 of 2007, wherein, the action of the second respondent was upheld. However, the second respondent management conceded before the Bench that heard the W.A.(MD).No.169 of 2007 that they dropped the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner. While so, the second respondent passed the impugned order, dated 27.02.2008 regularising the period of suspension by adjusting towards the available earned leave, unearned leave and also on loss of pay. THE afore-said order of the second respondent was approved by the first respondent in the order, dated 21.04.2008. THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the afore-said orders dated 27.02.2008 and 21.04.2008 of the second and first respondents respectively.

(2.) HEARD both sides.

(3.) IT is recorded that the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the second respondent was dropped. Since the disciplinary proceedings was dropped, his suspension period should have been regularised with all benefits. On the other hand, the second respondent passed the impugned order dated 27.02.2008, which is as follows:- ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]... Thus, the petitioner was imposed with some penalty. This was not permissible. Once the disciplinary proceedings was dropped, the period of suspension should have been regularised and he should be paid wages for the period of suspension after deducting the subsistence allowance. On the other hand, the second respondent sought to adjust the same by depriving his leave wages. Hence, the impugned order of the second respondent is quashed. Without applying his mind the first respondent simply approved the same. Hence, the impugned order of the first respondent is also quashed. The second respondent is directed to pay the monetary benefits payable to the petitioner, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.