IMPORTANT POINTS
The finding for the purpose of the preliminary investigation cannot affect the domestic enquiry against the respondents 6 and 7 contemplated in Rule 75 of Chapter XIV A of the Rules, which is necessarily a more comprehensive enquiry. The challenge against the direction to reinstate the respondents 6 and 7 hence cannot be interfered with.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner, a Manager of an Aided Lower Primary School, placed the respondents 6 and 7, who were working as Headmaster and Senior Assistant in the school, under suspension on 19.6.2002 on several grounds, which have been detailed and Exhibits P1 and P2. Rule 67(8) of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules (hereafter referred to as the Rules) mandates that the Manager, who has placed a headmaster/teacher or non-teaching staff under suspension, shall report the fact to the education authorities. It further provides that such officer authorised by the Government shall make preliminary investigation into the grounds of suspension and if the authority is satisfied that there was no valid ground for the suspension, he may direct the Manager to reinstate the teacher/non-teaching staff with effect from the date of suspension. On such direction being issued, the Manager is bound to reinstate the teacher/non-teaching staff forthwith. The Rules further provides that if the teacher is not actually reinstated, he shall be deemed to have been on duty, that his pay and allowances may be disbursed by the Department and such amount be recovered from the Manager.

2. According to the petitioner, he had filed Ext.P7 representation before the 4th respondent, stating that Exts.P3 and P4 orders were not served on him and that the action of the 4th respondent in drawing and disbursing the salary even without serving the order was in violation of the principles of natural justice. On 12.12.2002, the 3rd respondent issued Ext.P8 letter to the petitioner informing him that an amount of Rs.85,931/-being the amount paid to respondents 6 and 7 till 30.11.2002 will be recovered from him. It is only thereafter that the petitioner chose to file Exts.P5 and P6 revision petitions before the 1st respondent. Even though the petitioner was aware of the legal obligation to reinstate respondents 6 and 7 immediately on receipt of Exts.P3 and P4, he chose to reinstate respondents 6 and 7 only on 28.07.2003 and 01.08.2003 as per Exts.P11 and P12 respectively. As a matter of fact, Exts.P11 and P12 were issued only when the petitioner was faced with the threat of revenue recovery as evidenced by Exts.P9 and P10 demand notices. Even thereafter, when the amounts were not remitted, the 3rd respondent issued Ext.P13 notice stating that an amount of Rs.2,04,563/-is due towards the salary and allowances disbursed to respondents 6 and 7, as on 28.02.2003. It is also stated that an amount of Rs.97,788/- is due on the same account for the period from 01.03.2003 till the actual date of reinstatement.

3. It can be seen from Ext.P14 judgment dated 14.10.2003, in W.P.(C)No.23471/2003 filed by the petitioner that the recovery was kept in abeyance till the disposal of the revision petitions filed by the petitioner. On 25.02.2004, the Government issued Ext.P16, in compliance with the directions in Ext.P14 judgment, remitting the matter to the Director of Public Instruction for a detailed enquiry and denovo consideration of the case. Thereafter on 31.05.2004, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P17 order finding that there was no sufficient reason for the Manager to continue suspension of respondents 6 and 7 and holding that the petitioner is liable to remit the amounts demanded. The 2nd respondent, however, took into consideration the contention of the petitioner that the quantification of the amount is not correct and directed the 4th respondent to re-fix the actual amount to be remitted by the petitioner.

4. The petitioner challenged Ext.P17 order in a revision before the Government. Pending the revision, revenue recovery steps were initiated for realisation of an amount of Rs.2,46,476/-and collection charges. The petitioner once again approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.2653/2005, which was disposed of directing the Government to dispose of the revision petition within a period of three months. Revenue Recovery proceedings were directed to be kept in abeyance. By Ext.