RP/1152/2024 of THE MANAGER Vs M. SATHIANATHAN on 12 December 2024

ORDER

Easwaran S., J

The 3[rd] respondent in the appeal has come up with this reviewpetition, aggrieved by the judgment dated 04.09.2024 rendered byus.

2. We do not propose to elaborately deal with the facts ofthe case. However, suffice to say that the writ appeal was preferredfrom the Judgment of the learned Single Bench dismissing the writpetition preferred by the appellant. The question which arose forconsideration before us in the appeal was whether the period ofsuspension of the appellant from 19.05.2004 to 28.05.2007 wasliable to be treated as duty for all purposes. The Manager/Reviewpetitioner by proceedings dated 04.03.2011 issued ordersregularising the period of suspension as leave without allowance,which was questioned by the appellant in the appeal before the Departmental Authority. Though by Ext.P10 order dated 04.09.2012,the same was ordered in his favour, a challenge was raised beforethe learned Single Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.22962 of 2012by the subsequent appointee, and the said order was set aside andthe matter was directed to be reconsidered. By Ext.P13 order, thematter was reconsidered and the Director of Higher SecondaryEducation found in favour of the appellant/writ petitioner.

Conclusion

3. The Review Petitioner carried forward the challenge beforethe Government and the Government by Ext.P16 order, set aside thesaid findings. While considering the challenge against Ext.P16 order,the learned Single Judge had not only sustained the findings but alsoheld the writ petitioner himself responsible for the position where hefound himself. This finding was interfered with by us in the Judgmentunder review. We had, while allowing the appeal restored Ext.P13order and directed the Government to release all the benefits due tothe writ petitioner and further ordered that if any loss is caused to theGovernment on account of the said payment, the same can berecovered from the Manager. It is on this point, the Manager hassought review of our judgment rendered as above.

4. Heard Sri.George Poonthottam, the learned Senior Counsel

assisted by Smt.Nisha George, appearing for the reviewpetitioner/Manager.

5. At the outset itself, we made our minds clear to the learnedSenior Counsel that in the guise of the review petition, we do notpropose to rehear the respective contentions raised by the parties inthe appeal. However, the learned Senior Counsel submitted thatknowing fully the restrictions under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code ofCivil Procedure, 1908, he would demonstrate that the Judgment underreview was vitiated by error apparent on the face of the record.According to the learned Senior Counsel the finding rendered by usthat if any loss is caused to the Government can be recovered from themanager is certainly vitiated by error apparent on the face of therecord because it is suppressing certain material facts that the writpetitioner had approached this Court and therefore, the judgmentrequires to be reviewed. On the limited question, we proceeded toconsider the review.

6. Admittedly, the writ petitioner was kept out of service from19.05.2004 to 28.05.2007. As per the provisions of the KeralaEducational Rules, 1959, a teacher cannot be kept under suspensionfor more than 15 days. Admittedly, in the present case, the Review Petitioner was not granted permission by the authorities to extend thesuspension of the writ petitioner beyond 15 days and therefore, themanager was legally obliged to reinstate the writ petitioner. Instead ofreinstating the writ petitioner, the Manager continued the writpetitioner under suspension. We must hasten to add that only whenthis Court interfered and issued a direction to the Manager toreinstate the writ petitioner in service was such an order passed.Therefore, once the disciplinary proceedings were dropped, the writpetitioner was entitled to reckon the period of suspension as duty forall purposes.

7. We are also not impressed by the argument raised by thelearned Senior Counsel Sri.George Poonthottam that it is only becauseof the refusal on the part of the writ petitioner to discharge his duties,he was not appointed. Pertinently, we did not issue any direction to theState to release the service benefits due to the petitioner on account ofhis entitlement to hold the post of Principal-in-charge. But we had onlydirected the release of the service benefits as a High School Teacherduring the period he was kept under suspension.

We are also not impressed by the argument raised by the

8. Coming to the submissions of the learned Senior CounselSri.George Poonthottam, that directions issued by us to the

Government to recover any loss caused to them on account of ourdirections should be revisited on the ground that the same is vitiatedby an error apparent on the face of the record, we find that theintention of the Review Petitioner is to reopen the entire issues, whichwe had concluded. As a matter of fact, it is conceded before us thatthe Review Petitioner had appointed another teacher in the place ofthe petitioner. We are not aware as to whether the said teacher hasbeen paid the benefits during the interregnum. Be that as it may,even if the teacher was paid the benefits, that by itself cannotdisentitle the writ petitioner to receive the benefits since we havealready found that the findings rendered by the learned Single Judgeto sustain Ext.P16 order are erroneous and vitiated. Once we wereconvinced that the action of the Manager in keeping the writ petitionerout of service is arbitrary and illegal and without any authority, thewrit petitioner was certainly entitled for the consequential benefits,and that is the precise reason why we had issued the directions in thejudgment under review.

9. On an overall consideration of the facts presented beforeus, we are of the considered view that the judgment under review isnot vitiated by any error apparent on the face of the record. The mala fide act of the Manager is writ large on the face of the records.Therefore, we are not persuaded to hold that there is an errorapparent on the face of the record.

Accordingly, the review petition lacks merits and the same isdismissed. No order as to cost.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL

JUDGE

SMA

Sd/-

EASWARAN S.

JUDGE

Vide order dated 20/03/2025 in RP No.1152/2024, the followingcorrection is made in the Order dated 12/12/2024.

The words ‘High School Teacher’ occurring in the 7[th] line of 7[th] paragraphof the Order at page 6 is corrected as ‘Higher Secondary School Teacher’.

Sd/-

Deputy Registrar