IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 23957 of 2007(B)
1. GANGADHARA MARAR.C,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :03/07/2008
O R D E R
V. GIRI, J.
-------------------------------
WP(C).NO. 23957 of 2007
---------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2008.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner retired from service on superannuation on
31.5.1997. He challenges Ext.P5 order by which the Director of
Public Instruction has rejected his request to treat his
suspension period as duty for all purposes. It is directed to be
treated as eligible leave for all purposes.
2. The petitioner was placed under suspension from
1.4.1989 to 31.5.1992 in the wake of the registration of a crime
registered against him involving offences punishable under the
PC Act. The Special Court acquitted the petitioner. Though an
appeal was filed before this court, as evidenced by Ext.P3
judgment, the order of acquittal was confirmed. The petitioner
preferred Ext.P4 for regularising the period of suspension by
treating the period of suspension as duty for all purpose. As
noted above, by Ext.P5 the DPI has rejected the same stating
that the petitioner has been acquitted from the charges levelled
against him but the acquittal is due to failure of prosecution and
WPC.23957 /2007 2
he was not fully exonerated from the charges levelled against
him. In my view, the issue has to be reconsidered by the DPI for
more than one reason. Firstly the petitioner was not heard
before the Director passed Ext.P5 order. Secondly, the officer
has not considered the specific findings by the trial court and the
appellate court, before coming to the conclusion as to whether
the employee has been acquitted from the charges in a categoric
manner. I do not propose to express any further opinion in this
regard in circumstances where I am of the view that the issue
ought to be reconsidered by the Director after notice to the
petitioner .
In the result, Ext.P5 is set aside and the second respondent
is directed to pass fresh order on Ext.P4 application after hearing
the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment
V. GIRI, JUDGE.
Pmn/ WPC.23957 /2007 3