V.K. Nityanandan v. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Thiruvananthapuram; Kerala State Co-operative Rubber Marketing Federation Limited, represented by its Managing Director; Managing Director, Kerala State Co-operative Rubber Marketing Federation Limited, Gandhi Nagar, Kochi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/28TH AGRAHAYANA 1934 WP(C).No. 12405 of 2012 (A) --------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------- V.K.NITYANANDAN (S/O.V.U.KUTTAPPAN PILLAI(LATE),GENERAL MANAGER FINANCE(UNDER SUSPENSION) KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE RUBBER MARKETING FEDERATION LTD 'SOUPARNIKA',EDAPPALLY,COCHIN-682024. BY ADV. SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN RESPONDENTS: -------------- 1. THE REGISTRAR, CO-OP.SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE RUBBER MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,GANDHI NAGAR KOCH-682020. 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE RUBBER MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGINGDIRECTOR,GANDHI NAGAR KOCHI-682020. R2,R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU R2,R3 BY ADV. SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI BY SPL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.D.SOMASUNDARAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 1.8.2012, THE COURT ON 19-12-2012 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN WPC 12405/2012 ## PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF SUSPENSION ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 19.5.2011 EXT-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACTS OF THE ENQUIRY PROCEEDINGS EXT-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 10.4.2012 EXT-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 18.5.2012 EXT-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER,RUBBER MARK,GANDHI NAGAR,KOCHI DATED 8/5/2012. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER'S before THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 7.5.2012 EXT-P7 TRUE COPY OF MEMO DATED 20.4.2012 EXT-P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DASTED 2.5.2012. EXT.P9: -DO- OF THE COMMUNICATION SUBMITTED BY THE ENQUIRY OFFICER TO THE PETITIONER DT.26.3.2012 EXT.P10: -DO- OF LETTER DT.5.7.2012 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, RUBBER MARK EXT.P11: -DO- OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MANAGING DIRECTOR DT.27.5.2012 EXT.P12: -DO- OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT NO:P&A/193/1213 DT.28.5.2012 EXT.P13: -DO- OF THE SUSPENSION DT.26.9.2012 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS EXT.R2A: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DT.20.6.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXT.R2B: -DO- OF THE REPLY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DT.4.7.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.R2C: -DO- OF THE COMMUNICATION NO:P&A:11-12/421 DT.6.7.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.R2D: -DO- OF THE LETTER DT.23.7.2011 OF THE ADVOCATE, SHRI.K.RAMAKUMAR TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.R2E: -DO- OF THE REQUEST DT.21.5.2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO SMT. SMITHA GEORGE, ADVOCATE TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.R2F: -DO- REQUEST DT.21.4.2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO SMT.SMITHA GEORGE, ADVOCATE EXT.R2G: -DO- REPLY DT.30.4.2012 ISSUED BY SMT.SMITHA GEORGE, ADVOCATE TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.R2H: -DO- OF THE BOARD RESOLUTION NO:17(II) DT.24.4.2012 AND THE REPRESENTATION DT.2.5.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.R2I: -DO- PROCEEDINGS NO: E.M.(4) 22620/2012 DT.28.6.2012 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.R2J: -DO- OF THE ORDER DT.13.6.2012 IN W.A.NO:1056/2012 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT EXT.R2K: -DO- ORDER NO: P&A 2012-2013/252 DT.28.6.2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.R2L: -DO- PROCEEDINGS NO:P&A/193/12-13 DT.28.5.2012 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.R2M: -DO- OF THE STATEMENT OF SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE PAID TO THE PETITIONER UNDER SUSPENSION FROM 19.5.2011 EXT.R2N: -DO- OF THE REQUEST NO:VKN/003/12-13 DT.8.5.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER EXT.R2O: -DO- LETTER NO:REF:P&A/176/12-13 DT.23.5.2012 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER TO THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD EXT.R2P: -DO- OF THE LETTER NO: REF:P&A/247/12-13 DT.8.6.2012 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER TO THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD EXT.R2Q: -DO- OF THE SANCTIONED CASUAL LEAVE APPLICATIONS DT.7.7.2012 AND 13.7.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER EXT.R2R: -DO- OF THE REQUEST DT.2.7.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGER EXT.R2S: -DO- SALARY CERTIFICATE DT.4.7.2012 ISSUED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGER TO THE PETITIONER EXT.R2T: -DO- SALARY CERTIFICATE DT.6.7.2012 ISSUED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGER TO THE PETITIONER EXT.R2U: COPY OF MEMO OF CHARGES NO:P&A/12-13 DT.23.4.2012 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXT.R2V: -DO- OF THE BOARD RESOLUTION NO:2992) DT.16.7.2012 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.R2W: PHOTO COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE ATTENDANCE REGISTER OF MANAGERS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.R2X: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEING NO:P&A:12-13/765 DT.26.9.2012 EXT.R2Y: -DO- OF THE REPORT OF THE RECEPTION CLERK DT.26.9.2012 SUBMITTED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXT.R2Z: PHOTO COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DT.26.9.2012 IN RESPECT OF LETTER SENT TO THE PETITIONER JJ /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE ## **K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. -----------------------------------------------------------W.P(C) NO: 12405 OF 2012 ----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 19[th] December, 2012.** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner has filed this writ petition aggrieved by an order of suspension that is being continued indefinitely. According to the petitioner he is a Chartered Accountant and Law Graduate. He was selected and appointed as the Finance Manager of the second respondent on 22-8-1994. Subsequently, in 2005 he was promoted as the General Manager, Finance. On 19-5-2011 the petitioner was placed under suspension by the third respondent on the allegation that he had made payments to suppliers amounting to ` 8 crores during the period 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 without the written sanction of the Managing Director. There are a few other allegations also, namely, that he had spoken offensively to the Managing Director, had behaved rudely to subordinates had not deducted tax at source from his salary and that he had caused dishonour of cheques of the second respondent. A domestic enquiry was ordered into the said allegations. 2. The petitioner submitted his detailed reply to the allegations. He contended that payments to the suppliers of WPC 12405/2012 2 fertilizers were being sanctioned by the Finance Manager from 1994 onwards. It was only on 8-10-2010 after the present Managing Director assumed charge that an office order was issued modifying the earlier practice and directing that such payments should be sanctioned by the Managing Director. In the case of emergencies, it is directed that ratification of the Managing Director should be obtained subsequently. After receipt of the said office order, according to the petitioner no further payments have been sanctioned by him. The other allegations against the petitioner were denied by him. The petitioner also raised a further contention that the Managing Director who has issued Ext.P1 is not competent to suspend him, not being his appointing authority. 3. The explanation of the petitioner was not accepted and Smt. Smitha George, Advocate was appointed as the Enquiry Officer and one Shri.K.Omanakuttan, a retired officer and a contract employee of the second respondent was appointed as the presenting officer. Though the petitioner requested for legal assistance, his request was turned down. The petitioner however actively co-operated with the enquiry, produced documentary evidence to substantiate his case and the enquiry proceedings were completed on 14-12-2011, as evident from Ext.P2 which is a copy WPC 12405/2012 3 of the day to day proceedings of the enquiry. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, the enquiry report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer to the second respondent on 9-3-2012. 4. Though the enquiry report was submitted as stated above, the third respondent did not place the report of enquiry before the board meeting of the first respondent. Therefore, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 request for the issue of a copy of the report to him. However, there was no response to Ext.P3. All this time, the petitioner was continuing under suspension. His subsistence allowance also was not being paid to him. In the above circumstances, the petitioner was served with Ext.P4 extending his suspension for a further period of six months. 5. Since the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner was thus dragging on and his suspension was continuing indefinitely, the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 request under the Right to Information Act seeking a copy of the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, Smt.Smitha George, Advocate. He also submitted Ext.P6 representation to the Directors of the first respondent. Similar requests were submitted to the Government also. On 23-5-2012, apparently in reply to his request under the Right to Information Act, the petitioner was forwarded a copy of WPC 12405/2012 4 enquiry report dated 5-3-2012. As per the said report of enquiry, the petitioner has been absolved of charges 1,4 and 5 while charges 2 and 3 are held to be partially proved. However, no action was taken in the matter even thereafter. 6. In the above circumstances, the petitioner complains that a further memo of charges has been issued to him, which is Ext.P7. The petitioner responded to Ext.P7 by submitting Ext.P8 reply. In spite of the above, according to the petitioner no action has been taken for concluding the proceedings against him. The petitioner has therefore sought the issue of appropriate directions reinstating him in service. He also seeks the issue of orders quashing Ext.P4 and other ancillary reliefs. 7. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3. According to the counter affidavit, the petitioner is guilty of gross financial indiscipline and a huge amount of ` 8.25 crores has been disbursed by him to various suppliers. The memo of charges served on the petitioner discloses serious allegations involving misuse of official power, insubordination, dereliction of duty, favoritism etc. According to respondents 2 and 3, the petitioner has practically admitted the charges against him in his explanation, Ext.R2(b). The case of respondents 2 and 3 is WPC 12405/2012 5 that though an Advocate was appointed as the Enquiry Officer, the said officer had not submitted any enquiry report. Later, as per letter dated 30-4-2012 the Enquiry Officer expressed difficulty in continuing with the enquiry. The said communication is Ext.R2(g). Another Enquiry Officer has been appointed to proceed with the enquiry. 8. It is the case of respondents 2 and 3 that though the enquiry conducted by Smt. Smitha George, Advocate had progressed substantially by examining nine witnesses and marking ten documents, the said enquiry, in the opinion of the Enquiry Officer was only at the threshold. Though Ext.P2 shows that what remained was only submission of report of enquiry, no such report was submitted till April 2012. Since the management was of opinion that additional evidence had to be adduced, as per Ext.R2 (f), a request was made to reopen the enquiry. However, on receipt of Ext.R2(f) the Enquiry Officer replied as per Ext.R2(g) expressing her desire not to continue as the Enquiry Officer. Therefore, another Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the enquiry afresh. Since the enquiry had not been completed, the Board of Directors of the first respondent decided to extend the period of suspension for a further period of six months from 10-5-2012. WPC 12405/2012 6 Application for obtaining sanction of the Registrar as stipulated by Rule 198(6) was submitted on 2-5-2012. Therefore, the petitioner was served with Ext.P4 regarding continuation of his suspension. It is also pointed out that as per Ext.R2(i) dated 28-6-2012, the Registrar gave sanction for continuation of the suspension. It was in the above circumstances that the present writ petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the continuance of his suspension. 9. According to respondents 2 and 3 apart from the present charges against the petitioner, there are two other memos of charges issued to the petitioner into which, enquiries are yet to be conducted. The allegation regarding non-payment of subsistence allowance is also denied by respondents 2 and 3. It is contended that the petitioner is not entitled to payment of subsistence allowance under the Subsistence Allowance Act under the Kerala Service Rules. For the above reasons, respondents 2 and 3 pray for a dismissal of the writ petition. 10. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit answering the statements made in the counter affidavit. The petitioner has also produced Exts.P9 to P11 documents. Ext.P9 is a communication issued by Smt. Smitha George, Advocate in response to a letter of the petitioner seeking a copy of the enquiry report. As per Ext.P9, WPC 12405/2012 7 the petitioner has been informed that the enquiry report was submitted to the third respondent on 9-3-2012. It is alleged by the petitioner that though the report was received by the third respondent, the same was never placed before the Board of Directors. The petitioner has disputed the stand taken in the counter affidavit that the enquiry was not completed. It is pointed out that the conduct of the respondents in requesting for a reopening of the enquiry shows that the enquiry had been completed. The said request was made 127 days after closing the enquiry and 45 days after submission of the report. The genuineness of Exts.R2(g) and R2(f) documents are also disputed by the petitioner. It is contended that since no prior permission of the Registrar was obtained as required by the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules 1969 ('Rules' for short), the continuance of the petitioner's suspension is illegal and liable to be set aside. 11. Adv.Anu Sivaraman who appears for the petitioner points out that this is a clear case of harassment and victimization. The disciplinary proceedings initiated are based on incidents of the year 2009-2010 and 2010-2011. The alleged objectionable acts against the petitioner were all done by the petitioner in the discharge of his duties in accordance with the relevant rules and WPC 12405/2012 8 office orders that were in force at that time. Though the enquiry was completed and report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer, since the report was not to the liking of the third respondent, the same was not accepted. It is for the said reason that a fresh enquiry has been ordered into the same set of allegations. Such a procedure is violative of principles of justice and fair play and is liable to be set aside, it is contended. The counsel also relies on judicial precedents to support her contentions. 12. Adv.Jaju Babu who represents the respondents submits on the other hand that the petitioner is a person against whom disciplinary proceedings have been initiated on the allegations of serious lapses in the performance of his official duties. Considering the importance of the post that is occupied by the petitioner and the nature of the allegations made against him, such lapses have to be viewed seriously. That is the reason why he was placed under suspension and an enquiry ordered into the allegations. Even according to the Enquiry Officer, the enquiry was only at the 'threshold', as evident from Ext.P2. The management on a rethinking was of the opinion that additional evidence was necessary to be produced at the enquiry. It was for the said purpose that the enquiry was sought to be reopened. However, WPC 12405/2012 9 since the Enquiry Officer was not willing to continue as the Enquiry Officer, another Enquiry Officer has been appointed. The allegation that a report of the enquiry has been submitted is stoutly denied. According to the counsel, since a fresh enquiry was ordered it was necessary to continue the suspension of the petitioner. It was only for the above reason that the Board of Directors decided to continue the suspension. Though prior sanction was sought for, such sanction was received only later. Therefore, Ext.P4 was issued in anticipation of such sanction on 18-5-2012. It is contended that there is nothing wrong in adopting such procedure. For the above reasons, it is contended that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 13. I have heard Adv.Anu Sivaraman who appears for the petitioner as well as Adv.K.Jaju Babu who appears for the respondents. I have been taken through the records of the case in detail. Reference has also been made to the relevant statutory provisions and the precedents that are applicable. I have considered the contentions advanced before me anxiously. 14. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 19.05.2011. He has been continuing under suspension ever since. According to him, though a domestic enquiry that was ordered WPC 12405/2012 10 against him has been completed, since the report of the Enquiry Officer was not to the liking of the 3[rd] respondent, a fresh enquiry has been ordered. Consequently, the petitioner had been continuing under suspension indefinitely. Smt.Anu Sivaraman, the learned counsel for the petitioner, refers to Ext.P1 Memo of Charges to substantiate her contention that the allegations therein relate to the Financial Years 2009-2010 and 2010-2011. The trouble, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, has started after the present Managing Director took charge. The case of the petitioner is that the duties discharged by him in accordance with the rules and instructions that were applicable at the relevant time are now sought to be characterised as violations of subsequent instructions and office orders issued by the present Managing Director. In the nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, it is pointed out that there is no necessity of continuing the petitioner under suspension. There are no allegations relating to the discharge of his duties during the current year. It is also contended that since a domestic enquiry was already completed and what remained was mere production of the additional documents for which the 3[rd] respondent had sought time long after the enquiry report was submitted, no other procedure WPC 12405/2012 11 remains to be completed. In the above state of affairs, to continue the petitioner under suspension is unnecessary and for the said reason, the entire proceedings are vitiated. At any rate, it is contended that the present extension of his suspension as per Ext.P5 is liable to be set aside as being in violation of the statutory provision. 15. Advocate Jaju Babu, who appears for respondents 2 and 3, on the other hand contends that the enquiry ordered into the allegations against the petitioner was not completed as alleged. Ext.P2 proceedings of the enquiry reveals that the Enquiry Officer herself described the enquiry as being, only at the threshold. According to the learned counsel, a perusal of the details of the telephone calls made by the petitioner indicated that the case put forward by him was not true. Therefore, the details of the calls made by him were obtained from the B.S.N.L and it was the said document that was sought to be additionally produced. It was for the production of the said document that respondents 2 and 3 have sought for re-opening the enquiry. However, the Enquiry Officer informed that she was not prepared to continue as the Enquiry Officer. Therefore, another Enquiry Officer has been appointed and the proceedings are progressing. WPC 12405/2012 12 16. According to the learned counsel, an employer has the power to decide whether to continue an employee under suspension or not. The Managing Committee decided to continue the suspension of the petitioner by Ext.R2(h) resolution dated 24.04.2012. The same was forwarded to the Registrar on 02.05.2012 and permission of the Registrar has been obtained. The said order is dated 28.06.2012 and is produced as Ext.R2(i). Since the permission of the Registrar has been obtained, it is contended that the statutory mandate has been complied with. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 17. It is no doubt true that every employer has the right to place an employee under suspension, for valid reasons. However, such action could be pursued only in accordance with Rule 198(6) of the Rules. Rule 198(6) reads as follows: _“198. (6): An authority competent to appoint an employee may suspend him pending enquiry into serious charges against such employee. No employee shall however be kept under suspension for a period exceeding six months at a time. In no case an employee shall be kept under suspension for a continuous period exceeding one year without the prior_ WPC 12405/2012 13 _approval of the Registrar. [An employee under suspension shall be entitled to subsistence allowance payable under the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1972 (27 of 1973)]._ _[Provided that an employee not coming under the purview of the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1972 (27 of 1973) shall be entitled to subsistence allowance at the rate admissible to State Government Employees as prescribed under the Kerala Service Rules.]”_ A perusal of the above provision shows that there are certain restrictions imposed on the power of suspension available to an employer. It has been stipulated that no employee shall be kept under suspension for a period exceeding six months at a time. It is further stipulated that in no case shall an employee be kept under suspension for a continuous period exceeding one year without the prior approval of the Registrar. In this case, the petitioner was initially placed under suspension as per Ext.P1 on 19.05.2012. Therefore, the petitioner completed one year of suspension on 18.05.2012. As per Ext.P4 dated 18.05.2012, his suspension has been extended for a further period of six months. As per Rule 198 WPC 12405/2012 14 (6) such extension of the petitioner's period of suspension could have been done only with the prior approval of the Registrar. In the present case, it is not in dispute that as on 18.05.2012, the Registrar had not granted any approval. Admittedly, the approval of the Registrar was obtained only on 28.06.2012 as per Ext.R2(i). Therefore, the question to be considered is whether such an ex post facto approval is sufficient to satisfy the requirement under Rule 198(6). 18. The above question has been considered by a Single Bench of this Court in an unreported judgment dated 11.06.2009 in W.P(c) No.15239 of 2009. Antony Dominic, J. has after considering the issue held as follows in para.4 of the said judgment: _“4. In view of the admitted fact that there is no prior approval of the Registrar as contemplated in Rule 198 of the Keala Co-operative Societies Rules for keeping the petitioner under suspension beyond 28.02.2009, his continuance in suspension beyond that date is clearly illegal and therefore he has to be reinstated in service.”_ **1** 9. In the decision reported in _**Union of India v. Dipak Mali**_ [(2010) 2 SCC 222], the Honourable Supreme Court had to consider WPC 12405/2012 15 a similar stipulation contained in Rule 10(6) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. As per the said Rule, a review for modification or revocation of the order of suspension was required to be done before the expiry of 90 days from the date of the order of suspension. It was further provided in Sub Rule 7 that the order of suspension made would not be valid after a period of 90 days unless it was extended after review for a further period of 90 days. In the said case, no such review was conducted as required by the Rule for the reason that the employee under suspension had moved the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Honourable Supreme Court held that in view of the stipulations contained in Sub Rule 6 and 7 of Rule 10, unless the suspension order was extended after review before the expiry of a period of 90 days, the order of suspension would lapse. A subsequent review thereof could not breathe life into the said order. 20. A similar view has been expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in _**Manager, S.N.V.High School v. State of Kerala**_ [1982 KLT 229], where the extent of the power of suspension available to the Manager of an Aided School under the Kerala Education Act, 1958 and the Kerala Education Rules, 1959, came up for consideration. After considering the issue, Khalid, J. (as he then WPC 12405/2012 16 was) has held as follows: “ _10. ......................................................................... ........................................................... The latter part of_ _the section contains two in-built safeguards. If the authority finds that there were valid grounds for suspension initially, a discretion is given to him to permit the Manager to keep the teacher under suspension beyond 15 days. This discretion is manifest from the use of the words `if necessary'. In other words, a close reading of this portion of the rule clearly brings out the intention of the rule making authority that the Educational authority exercising powers under rule 67(8) has the power to decide, in a given case, having regard to the circumstances and facts brought to its notice, either to allow extension beyond 15 days or not. It is also significant to note that the order under rule 67(8) has to be passed within the original 15 days, the period during which the Manager has the power to suspend without permission. Any order passed beyond 15 days therefore will not be an order under rule 67(8). If we understand this rule thus, it_ WPC 12405/2012 17 _would be clear that the authority is invested with the power either to grant or refuse permission to extend the period of suspension. To say, that once the authority finds that there were grounds for suspension, he has necessarily to extend suspension or to say that if disciplinary proceedings are contemplated or are pending and suspension is justified with reference to rule 67(1), the officer has no alternative but to extend suspension, is to misread the rule. By ratifying the suspension to the extent of 15 days from 30.03.1981 by Ext.P2 order, the 2[nd] respondent has acted strictly in accordance with rule 67(8). The submission made by the petitioner's counsel that a ratification for this period is not necessary may be correct in one sense. However, we feel that the 2[nd] respondent only meant that despite the fact that he was satisfied of the existence of the valid grounds for suspension when Ext.P2 order was passed, he was not inclined to extend the suspension beyond 15 days and it is to inform the Manager of this that he expressed himself by observing that the suspension is ratified for 15 days. Ext.P2_ WPC 12405/2012 18 _order dated 10.04.1981 is within 15 days as contemplated in rule 67(8).”_ On the above basis, the Division Bench held that the petitioner therein was entitled to be reinstated. In another decision, _**Leelamma v. Kerala State Co-operative Rubber Marketing Federation**_ [ [2008(1) KLT 608], another single Bench of this Court has also taken a similar view. In fact, in the said decision Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. has gone on to observe that even in cases where suspension is permissible, such power would have to be controlled by the need, necessity, the facts and the circumstances of each case. 21. The above precedents sufficiently make it clear that approval of the Registrar that is contemplated by Rule 198(6), being qualified by the word “prior”, has to precede the extension of the suspension order. In the present case no prior approval of the Registrar having been obtained, it has to be held that Ext.P4 is unsustainable. In the nature of the charges levelled against the petitioner also, I am not satisfied that continuance of the petitioner under suspension is necessary. Though a number of other contentions are also raised, I do not think it necessary to consider the same, since I have already found that Ext.P4 is unsustainable. I WPC 12405/2012 19 also notice that the relief sought for by the petitioner in this Writ Petition is limited to the challenge against Ext.P4. For the above reasons, this Writ Petition is allowed. Ext.P4 is quashed. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated in service forthwith. Sd/K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj /True copy/