JUDGMENT

Petitioner is the Manager of Sankara Menon Memorial Higher Secondary School (for short the School). Smt.Sivakumari R., the fourth respondent, was the Principal of the School. She was initially suspended on 22.09.2020 which was extended for six months on 06-10-2020. The order of suspension was challenged by Smt.Sivakumari R., before this Court. By judgment dated 30.03.2021 in W.P.(C) No.125859 of 2020, this Court set aside the order of suspension as well as the order extending the period of suspension and issued the following directions:

“In the afore circumstances, I have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner has made out a case warranting interference by this Court; and resultantly, I allow this Writ Petition and quash Exts.P18 and P20, however, leaving full liberty to the Manager and to the competent Educational Authorities to initiate and conclude any action against the petitioner, that may be permissible under the KER, but only as per law and after following the imperative and mandatory procedure established under it.”

2. Immediately thereafter, on 07.04.2021, petitioner once again suspended the fourth respondent. Alleging that the Manager's refusal to reinstate her, pursuant to the judgment dated 30.03.2021, amounted to contempt of court, the fourth respondent filed Contempt Case (Civil) No.788 of 2021. However, by judgment dated 10.08.2021, this Court closed the contempt case, observing that if there was a violation of the statute, the remedy was to challenge it.

3. In the meantime, petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.10368 of

2021 seeking a direction to the Director of General Education (for short 'DGE') to consider the request for extension of the period of suspension imposed on the fourth respondent on 07-04-2021. The writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P6, directing a decision to be taken within two weeks. The impugned order dated 06.09.2021 was issued by the second respondent thereafter, directing the fourth respondent to be reinstated in service.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the fourth respondent contending that the DGE had declined the request of the Manager to grant an extension of the order of suspension, since, to continue the suspension of a teacher beyond 15 days, sanction has to be obtained and for that purpose petitioner himself had filed W.P.(C) No.10368 of 2021 and obtained a direction to the DGE to consider the representation. It was also pleaded that on the expiry of the initial period of the order of suspension, the fourth respondent ought to have been re- inducted in service, as this Court had set aside the order of suspension. However, without reinducting the fourth respondent, another suspension order was issued as Ext.R4(a) for which an extension of period was also sought. A detailed representation was given as Ext.R4(b). Ext.R4(a) was issued in continuation of the earlier suspension order, which is legally not sustainable and hence, fourth respondent is liable to be reinstated. The fourth respondent also pleaded that as per Rule 67 of Chapter XIVA of KER, a teacher whose suspension has not been extended is duty-bound to be reinstated and also that liberty was granted by Ext.P1 only to proceed with the disciplinary action. Fourth respondent is kept under suspension from 23.09.2020 and no subsistence allowance has been paid after February, 2021 and further that since the order of suspension was set aside by this Court, fourth respondent is entitled for salary from 23-09-2020 to 04–07-2021, excluding the 15 days from 07-04-2021. It was further pleaded that even otherwise, salary is liable to be paid to the fourth respondent from 22.04.2021.

5. I have heard Sri.Kodoth Sreedharan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, the learned counsel for the fourth respondent as well as Sri.George Abraham, learned counsel for the fifth respondent apart from Smt. Nisha Bose, the learned Senior Government Pleader.

6. Indisputably the order of suspension imposed upon the fourth respon