A teacher's periods of suspension must be regularized as duty if no formal punishment exists, ensuring entitlement to salary benefits and compliance with educational directives.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition, aggrieved by the non-regularisation of his suspension period. The petitioner seeks a direction to quash Ext.P14 and Ext.P15 orders and further prays that the period from 18.02.2015 to 07.03.2016 be treated as duty, with a consequential re-fixation of salary. Additionally, the petitioner seeks promotion to the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher (for short ‘HSST’) from the appropriate notional date, along with the disbursement of all attendant monetary and service benefits.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was originally appointed as an HSA (Maths) under the 6^th respondent on 15.07.1996. On 11.11.2008, the petitioner attended the District Maths Festival and obtained a duty certificate issued by the District Educational Officer (DEO), Chavakkad. However, the 5^th respondent treated this absence as unauthorized and issued a show-cause notice. Dissatisfied with the petitioner’s reply, the respondent placed the petitioner under suspension on 29.12.2008 (Ext.P1).

3. Pending the inquiry, the suspension was revoked via Ext.P2, with a direction that the regularization of the suspension period would be subject to the finalization of the disciplinary proceedings. One year later, via Ext.P3, it was decided not to proceed further with the disciplinary action, in light of the apology offered by the petitioner and the duty certificate issued by the DEO. Consequently, the suspension period from 29.12.2008 to 26.03.2009 was directed to be treated as eligible leave, and the petitioner was cautioned against future occurrences. The petitioner challenged Ext.P3 before the Deputy Director of Education via Ext.P4; however, no orders have been passed on that appeal to date.

4. Subsequently, the petitioner was transferred to MIHSS Girls High School under the same management, where he faced an allegation of child molestation. However, as evidenced by Ext.P5, the Child Welfare Committee found the petitioner innocent, noting that the deposition of the de facto complainant lacks credibility.

5. Thereafter, an altercation occurred between the petitioner and representatives of the management. The petitioner alleged that the representatives threatened him, leading him to file a police complaint (Ext.P6). Pursuant to this complaint, the management representatives were summoned to the police station. Immediately following this, on 27.01.2014, the petitioner was suspended from service via order Ext.P7.

6. With an intention to complete the disciplinary proceedings, the suspension period was initially extended by 15 days. Citing a lack of reply from the petitioner, the Manager sought a further six-month extension. By order Ext.P8, dated 16.09.2014, the suspension was extended for an additional two months. Although the petitioner challenged this before the Government and a hearing was held on 29.12.2014, no orders were passed.

7. Subsequently, following a hearing on 15.11.2014 involving both the petitioner and the management, and based on a report recommending a lesser punishment, the Manager was directed to reinstate the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner rejoined duty on 12.12.2014. However, the 5^th respondent (Manager) implemented this direction by imposing a penalty of barring two increments with cumulative effect. Furthermore, by an order dated 27.12.2014, the suspension period was regularized by treating it as leave without allowance.

8. The petitioner was once again suspended, at the instance of the 6^th respondent (the erstwhile Head Master), with effect from 18.02.2015, as evidenced by Ext.P9 dated 16.02.2