WP(C) Nos. 16911 of 2021 and 17318 of 2021 – SnehaJ Kumar D.B. and others v State of Kerala and others

``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` # **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1944 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 16911 OF 2021`** ## **`PETITIONERS:`** ``` 1SNEHAJ KUMAR D.B., AGED 49 YEARS S/O.DAMODARAN.T., H.S.T. (HINDI), M.C.H.S.S. KOOTTUKALKONAM, RESIDING AT VILU NIVAS, CHUNDAILPETTU, KANJIRAMKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 524. 2USHA KUMARI, AGED 53 YEARS D/O.B.LAKSHMANAN, H.S.T. (MATHS), M.C.H.S.S. KOOTTUKALKONAM, RESIDING AT RUGMA, ELAUVILA, VANGANOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 523. 3SINDHU.L., AGED 47 YEARS W/O.M.S.SHAJI, H.S.T. (MALAYALAM), M.C.H.S.S. KOOTTUKALKONAM, SARASWATI VILASAM, ARUVIPURAM P.O., NEYYATINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 126. 4SREELEKHA.R., AGED 50 YEARS D/O.KARUNAKARAN NAIR, H.S.T.(ENGLISH), M.C.H.S.S. KOOTTUKALKONAM, VAZHAVILAKATHUVEEDU, MANNOTTUKONAM, PAYATTUVILA P.O., BALARAMAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 501. 5SOBHA KUMARI, AGED 41 YEARS D/O.ROBINSON.J., H.S.T. (PHYSICAL SCIENCE), M.C.H.S.S. KOOTTUKALKONAM, VIPANCHIKA, PONVILA, AYIRA P.O., PARASALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 502. BY ADVS. MILLU DANDAPANI SUMATHY DANDAPANI (SR.) ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GENERAL EDUCATION (H) DEPT., GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001. ``` W.P.(C).Nos.16911 & 17318 of 2021 2 - `2 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION (DGE), DGE OFFICE, JAGATHY DPI JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.` - `3 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KILLIPALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 002.` - `4 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DEO, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 121.` ``` SMT.NISHA BOSE, SR.GP ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.03.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).17318/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C).Nos.16911 & 17318 of 2021 3 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1944 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 17318 OF 2021`** ## **`PETITIONERS:`** ``` 1SHEEJA RANI.P.G AGED 38 YEARS H.S.A., SOCIAL SCIENCE, M.C.H.S.S. KOTTUKALKONAM, W/O. SHAJIMON.K., RESIDING AT POURNAMI, PLAVUNINNA, MULLUVILA P.O., THIRUPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 523 2S.L.SREEKUMARY, AGED 42 YEARS H.S.A., NATURAL SCIENCE, M.C.H.S.S. KOTTUKALKONAM, W/O.S. SHAJI, RESIDING AT 'KRISHNA KRIPA', ELAVUVILA, VENGANOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 042 3S.B.ANCHANA AGED 41 YEARS H.S.A.,MALAYALAM , M.C.H.S.S. KOTTUKALKONAM, W/O. K.K.PADMAKUMAR, RESIDING AT 'PUTHUVALPUTHANVEEDU', GOVINDAMANGALAM, OORUTTAMBALAM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 507 4M.V SAJITHA AGED 41 YEARS H.S.A., MALAYALAM , M.C.H.S.S. KOTTUKALKONAM, W/O. R . GIREESHKUMAR, RESIDING AT 'GIREESH BHAVAN', K.S ROAD, KOVALAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 027 5K.S.SHREESUBHA AGED 43 YEARS H.S.A., ENGLISH , M.C.H.S.S. KOTTUKALKONAM, W/O. YESUDAS.F., RESIDING AT THANAL COTTAGE, KALLUVELLANKUZHI, VENGANOOR P.O., THRIUVANANTHAPURAM-695 042 6RENUKA.N. AGED 44 YEARS H.S.A.,ENGLISH , M.C.H.S.S. KOTTUKALKONAM, W/O. SIBI.A.N., RESIDING AT 'RENUKA BHAVAN', ``` W.P.(C).Nos.16911 & 17318 of 2021 4 ``` PULIYOORKONAM, PAYATTUVILLA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 501 ``` ``` BY ADVS. SUMATHY DANDAPANI (SR.) MILLU DANDAPANI ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - `1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GENERAL EDUCATION DEPT., GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695 001` - `2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, DGE OFFICE, JAGATHY, DPI JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014` - `3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KILLIPALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014` - `4 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DEO, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DT -695 121` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.03.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).16911/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C).Nos.16911 & 17318 of 2021 5 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** **-----------------------------W.P.(C)Nos. 16911 and 17318 of 2021 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 08[th] day of March, 2023** ## **JUDGMENT** These two writ petitions are connected therefore, I am disposing of these writ petitions by a common judgment. First, I will narrate the facts in W.P.(C)No.16911/2021: The petitioners are teachers in M.C.H.S.S, Koottukalkonam, Balaramapuram, Thiruvananthapuram. All the petitioners are working as High School Teachers (in short, ‘HSA’) in the School. In 2014-15, there were frequent inspections conducted in the School by the educational authorities which leads to the suspension of the petitioners alleging fake admissions in the School register. After conducting a formal enquiry by the 3[rd] respondent, the Deputy Director of Education, Thiruvananthapuram, a charge memo was issued to each of the petitioners. The petitioners W.P.(C).Nos.16911 & 17318 of 2021 6 submitted a reply to the same. But all were suspended with effect from 29.08.2014 and after a period of 7 months, all were reinstated and the petitioners rejoined the duty on 28.03.2015. Subsequently, after a gap of two years, a notice was issued by the 3[rd] respondent for taking disciplinary proceedings against the suspended teachers. In that notice, it is mentioned that the bogus admission is an action of grievous nature and it calls for severe punishment imposing permanent debarring two years increments. It was also stated in that notice that, due to the dereliction of duty of the teachers, the state has sustained a financial loss of Rs.2,48,86,609/-. It is stated that this amount has to be collected from the respective teachers, manager, and all the Government employees connected with the above incident proportionately. It is the case of the petitioners that, without following the procedures established by law and without considering the representations from the petitioners or previous orders from the Government, the 3[rd] respondent in a protracted proceeding stretched over 16 years, and finally issued Ext.P9 order dated 02.06.2020 W.P.(C).Nos.16911 & 17318 of 2021 7 debarring two years increment of the petitioners. Aggrieved by Ext.P9, all the petitioners filed a review petition to reconsider the same. But as per Ext.P10, the Government rejected the revision petition. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed with the following prayers: _“(i) Call for records leading to Ext P9 dated 02.06.2020 and Ext P10 order dated 19.07.2021, and to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the same_ _(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction declaring that no punishment could be inflicted on the petitioners for the alleged loss sustained by the government in view of the dictum laid down by this Hon'ble Court in Ext P11 & P12 Judgements. And_ _(iii) Award Costs.”[SIC]_ 2. The petitioners in W.P.(C)No.17318/2021 are also teachers in M.C.H.S.S, Koottukalkonam, Neyyattinkara, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioners 1, 2 and 3 were initially appointed as Upper Primary School Assistants (for short, ‘U.P.S.A’) and were later promoted as HSA. Petitioners 4, 5 and 6 were directly appointed as High School Teachers. The 5[th] petitioner is orthopedically handicapped and the percentage W.P.(C).Nos.16911 & 17318 of 2021 8 of disability detected by the medical board is 50%. It is stated in this writ petition that during the academic year 2014-15, there were frequent inspections conducted in the school by the educational authorities and some irregularities were detected relating to the admission and attendance of the students by the 3[rd] respondent, The Deputy Director of Education, Thiruvananthapuram. In connection with the same, the petitioners, in this case, were also suspended alleging their involvement in the maintenance of fake admissions in the school register as per an order dated 29.08.2014. Later the petitioners were reinstated as per the order passed by the Government. While so, the 3[rd] respondent issued a notice to all the teachers on 31.10.2017 for completing the disciplinary proceedings and directed the petitioners to appear before him for a hearing on 26.10.2018. The petitioners appeared and submitted their version. It is also submitted that, as per the circular dated 09.10.2014, the government decided to give admonition to all the teachers and to proceed only against the management. Hence the petitioners claimed to extend that W.P.(C).Nos.16911 & 17318 of 2021 9 benefit as per the government order. But the 3[rd] respondent as per the order dated 12.11.2018 fastened the liability of Rs. 2,48,86,609/- on 25 teachers of M.C.H.S.S Kottukalkonam and 6 other teachers who are not connected with the alleged bogus admission and the manager of M.C.H.S.S Kottukalkonam, is their submission. Two increments were permanently barred as far as the petitioners were concerned. The petitioners filed a revision before the 1[st] respondent, The Government. The petitioners herein filed W.P.(C)No.41222/2018, against the order debarring two increments with cumulative effect and also for fastening the proportionate liability of the alleged losses sustained by the Government. This Court directed the 1[st] respondent to consider the revision petition which was marked as Ext.P7 in the writ petition, within a period of two months. Till then the recovery proceedings were kept in abeyance. In pursuant to Ext.P4, the 1[st] respondent considered the matter and passed an order on 19.09.2019. The 1[st] respondent set aside the order of the Deputy Director as far as the petitioners are concerned and the Deputy Director was again asked to look W.P.(C).Nos.16911 & 17318 of 2021 10 into the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders. Pursuant to Ext.P5, the Deputy Director heard the petitioners on 02.02.2019 and thereafter Ext.P6 order was passed against them on 02.06.2020. Aggrieved by Ext.P6, certain teachers of the same School filed a review petition dated 03.09.2020. The petitioners and 24 others were heard by the 1[st] respondent. Consequently, Ext.P8 order was passed by the Government rejecting the claim of the petitioners. Hence this writ petition is filed with the following prayers: _“a. Call for the records leading to Exts P6 dated 02.06.2020 and P8 dated 19.07.2021 and issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the same._ _b. To issue a writ, order or direction, declaring that the withholding of two increments permanently without conducting any disciplinary proceedings is without jurisdiction and hence, it is void._ _c. To issue a writ, order or direction declaring that no punishment could be inflicted for the alleged loss sustained by the government in view of the judgements of the Division Benches rendered in W.A. No 1288 of 2007 and W.A. No. 2112 of 2012 without conducting any disciplinary proceedings. And_ _d. Award cost.”[SIC]_ W.P.(C).Nos.16911 & 17318 of 2021 11 Ext.P8 in W.P.(C)No.17318/2021 is Ext.P10 in W.P. (C)No.16911/2021. 3. Heard the Senior counsel Smt. Sumathi Dandapani instructed by her retaining counsel. I also heard the learned Senior Government Pleader, Smt.Nisha Bose. 4. The Senior counsel took me through Ext.P2 circular in W.P.(c) No.16911 of 2021 and submitted that, as per the above circular the Government itself decided to exonerate the teachers. The Senior counsel also took me through Ext.P3 Government order in that case especially paragraphs 4 and 5 in that Order. Senior counsel further took me through Ext.P5 and submitted that the suspension period is also regularised by the Deputy Director of Education. Thereafter the Senior counsel took me through Exts.P11 and P12 judgments. 5. It is submitted that in Exts.P11 and P12, this Court observed that there is no provision in the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as, ’KER’) which enables the Department to recover the loss from the Headmistress. The principle in Exts.P11 and P12 are applicable to the petitioners W.P.(C).Nos.16911 & 17318 of 2021 12 also is the submission. The senior counsel also submitted that the punishment imposed on the petitioners in these cases is barring two increments. The senior counsel further submitted that, in the light of the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in _**Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab**_ (1991 Supp(1) SCC 504), barring two increments is a major penalty. The submission of the senior counsel is that the impugned orders in these cases imposing a major penalty of barring two increments is unsustainable for the simple reason that the proceedings in Rule 75 of Chapter XIV(A) of KER is not followed. The Government Pleader supported the impugned order. But the Government Pleader conceded to the fact that the procedure to be followed for a major penalty as per Rule 75 of Chapter XIV(A) of KER is not followed in this case. 6. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the respondents. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners in these cases were imposed a major penalty of barring two increments permanently. The Apex Court in _**Kulwant Singh Gill’s**_ case (supra) observed that the stoppage of two W.P.(C).Nos.16911 & 17318 of 2021 13 ## increments with cumulative effect amounts to a major penalty. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the above judgment hereunder : “ _4. Withholding of increments of pay simpliciter undoubtedly is a minor penalty within the meaning of Rule 5(iv). But sub-rule (v) postulates reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a specified period with further directions as to whether or not the government employee shall earn increments of pay during the period of such reductions and whether on the expiry of such period the reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay. It is an independent head of penalty and it could be imposed as punishment in an appropriate case. It is one of the major penalties. The impugned order of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect whether would fall within the meaning of Rule 5(v)? If it so falls Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules require conducting of regular enquiry. The contention of Shri Nayar, learned counsel for the State is that withholding two increments with cumulative effect is only a minor penalty as it does not amount to reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay. We find it extremely difficult to countenance the contention. Withholding of increments of pay simpliciter without any hedge over it certainly comes within the meaning of Rule 5(iv) of the Rules. But when penalty was imposed withholding two increments i.e. for two years with cumulative effect, it would indisputably mean that the two increments earned by the employee was cut off as a measure of penalty for ever in his upward march of earning higher scale of pay. In_ W.P.(C).Nos.16911 & 17318 of 2021 14 _other words the clock is put back to a lower stage in the time scale of pay and on expiry of two years the clock starts working from that stage afresh. The insidious effect of the impugned order, by necessary implication, is that the appellant employee is reduced in his time scale by two places and it is in perpetuity during the rest of the tenure of his service with a direction that two years' increments would not be counted in his time scale of pay as a measure of penalty. The words are the skin to the language which if peeled off its true colour or its resultant effects would become apparent. When we broach the problem from this perspective the effect is as envisaged under Rule 5(v) of the Rules. It is undoubted that the Division Bench in Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab[1] , P.C. Jain, A.C.J. speaking for the Division Bench, while considering similar question, in paragraph 8 held that the stoppage of increments with cumulative effect, by no stretch of imagination falls within clause (v) of Rule 5 or in Rule 4.12 of Punjab Civil Services Rules. It was further held that under clause (v) of Rule 5 there has to be a reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by the competent authority as a measure of penalty and the period for which such a reduction is to be effective has to be stated and on restoration it has further to be specified whether the reduction shall operate to postpone the future increments of his pay. In such cases withholding of the increments without cumulative effect does not at all arise. In case where the increments are withheld with or without cumulative effect the government employee is never reduced to a lower stage of time scale of pay. Accordingly it was held that clause (iv) of Rule 5 is applicable to the facts of that case. With respect we_ _are unable to agree with the High Court. If the literal_ 1 ILR (1985) 2 P&H 193 : (1985) 1 SLJ 513 (P&H) W.P.(C).Nos.16911 & 17318 of 2021 15 _interpretation is adopted the learned Judges may be right to arrive at that conclusion. But if the effect is kept at the back of the mind, it would always be so, the result will be the conclusion as we have arrived at. If the reasoning of the High Court is given acceptance, it would empower the disciplinary authority to impose, under the garb of stoppage of increments, (sic stoppage) of earning future increments in the time scale of pay even permanently without expressly stating so. This preposterous consequence cannot be permitted to be permeated. Rule 5(iv) does not empower the disciplinary authority to impose penalty of withholding increments of pay with cumulative effect except after holding inquiry and following the prescribed procedure. Then the order would be without jurisdiction or authority of law, and it would be per se void. Considering from this angle we have no hesitation to hold that the impugned order would come within the meaning of Rule 5(v) of the Rules; it is a major penalty and imposition of the impugned penalty without enquiry is perse illegal._ _……………………………………………………………………………………………………_ _…………………. In view of the finding that the impugned order is a major penalty certainly then a regular enquiry has got to be conducted and so the impugned order is clearly illegal. The trial court rightly granted the decree. The judgment and the decree of the High Court is vitiated by manifest illegality. At this distance of time it is not expedient to direct an enquiry under Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the judgment and decree of the High Court is set aside and that of the trial court is restored but in the circumstances without costs.”_ W.P.(C).Nos.16911 & 17318 of 2021 16 7. For imposing a major penalty, Rule 75 of Chapter XIV(A) of KER prescribed a detailed procedure. Admittedly such a procedure is not followed. This Court in **Manager v. State of Kerala and others** [2012 (2) KHC 351] considered the manner in which the disciplinary proceedings is to be initiated in such cases. Admittedly, the procedure contemplated in Rule 75 of Chapter XIV(A) of KER is not followed in the case of the petitioners. Admittedly, the punishment imposed is barring two increments permanently. In _**Kulwant Singh Gill’**_ **s** case (supra), it is clearly stated that barring two increments with cumulative effect is a major penalty. Under such circumstances, in my opinion, the impugned orders will not stand. Moreover, from Exts.P11 and P12 judgments produced in W.P.(C.) No. 16911/2021, it is clear that there is no procedure to recover the loss sustained from a Headmistress in bogus admission case. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the judgment dated 25.06.2009 in W.A. No. 1288/2007. _“The writ petitioner is the appellant. The brief facts of the case are the following:_ W.P.(C).Nos.16911 & 17318 of 2021 17 _The appellant is the Headmistress of an Upper Primary School managed by the 4[th] respondent. In her school for the year 2004-2005, 27 posts were sanctioned as per Ext.P1 staff fixation order. There were 20 class divisions also. Later, on the basis of the inspection of the Super Check Cell, bogus admissions were found and as per the direction of the said Cell 81 students were removed from the School. The same resulted in reduction of two teaching posts. The proceeding of the DPI, reducing the number of divisions from 20 to 18, is Ext.P2. In Ext.P2 there is an observation that the loss suffered by the exchequer, by reason of the additional sanction of two posts, can be recovered from the Headmistress. Feeling aggrieved by that, the petitioner moved the Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge dismissed the same and hence this appeal._ _2. No provision has been brought to our notice, which enables the DPI while passing an order in the nature of Ext.P2 to order recovery from the Headmistress, the loss suffered by sanction of additional class divisions, given based on bogus admissions of students. It may be permissible to recover loss from the Headmistress as part of the disciplinary proceedings. So, no recovery shall be made from the appellant solely based on Ext.P2. We clarify this legal position and dispose of the Writ Appeal. If, in the disciplinary action, any recovery is ordered, the appellant will be free to resist it raising all the contentions available to her under law._ _The Writ Appeal is disposed of as above.”_ 8. The same is followed by this Court in Ext.P12 W.P.(C).Nos.16911 & 17318 of 2021 18 ## judgment. It will be better to extract that judgment also. _“1. Heard._ _2. This writ appeal is by the Headmistress of an aided school. Department held that there were bogus admissions for the purpose of ensuring that there is no division fall and such bogus admissions were unearthed in an enquiry by the Surprise Check Cell. The staff fixation proceedings, according to the Department, showed that there was loss caused to the Government. The Department ordered recovery of such loss from the Headmistress. Her challenge against the same has been repelled by the learned single Judge._ _3. Leave alone the plea of the appellant that nobody was paid any amount towards salary as reckonable to excess appointments of retention service, there is no provision in the Kerala Education Act or Rules, which enables the Director of Public Instruction to pass an order for recovery from the Headmistress, any loss suffered by sanction of additional class divisions, even if that is given on the basis of the bogus admissions of students. See for support: judgment dated 25.6.2009 of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.1288 of 2007. It may be permissible to effect recovery of loss from the Headmistress as part of the disciplinary proceedings. But, no disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the Headmistress in this case. As noted in W.A.No.1288 of 2007, therefore, there is no warrant to enforce the recovery as ordered by the Director of Public Instruction._ _In the result, this writ appeal is allowed, setting aside the impugned judgment and consequently, allowing the original petition, quashing the recovery proceedings against the appellant/writ petitioner on the strength of Exts.P1 to P7.No_ W.P.(C).Nos.16911 & 17318 of 2021 19 _costs.”_ 9. In the light of Exts.P11 and P12 and also in the light of the fact that there is no provision in the KER to recover the amount from the Headmaster, the same is applicable to the teachers also. Here in this case the disciplinary proceedings are to be quashed for not following the procedure prescribed in Rule 75 Chapter XIV A KER in the light of the principle laid down by the apex court in _**Kulwant Singh Gill’s**_ case (supra). Therefore, the impugned orders are to be set aside. At this stage, the Government Pleader submitted that liberty may be given to the Department to initiate disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law. The petitioners are teachers and they are continuing in the school. As per Ext.P2 circular, the Government itself decided to exonerate such teachers from disciplinary proceedings on certain conditions. Consequential steps were already taken. The alleged bogus admission was in the year 2014-15. Therefore, no liberty can be given to the Department for fresh disciplinary proceedings at this distance of time. Moreover such a prayer was denied by the apex court W.P.(C).Nos.16911 & 17318 of 2021 20 also in _**Kulwant Singh Gill’s**_ case (supra) which is clear from the last portion of the judgement. That principle is applicable to the petitioners also. 10. The senior counsel submitted that there may be a direction to disburse the full salary from 2014 onwards on the basis of 10[th] pay revision and also on the basis of 11[th] pay revision with effect from 2019 to the petitioners as the same was not disbursed because of the disciplinary proceedings. The petitioners are at liberty to approach the statutory authorities with appropriate representation in the light of this judgment and if such a representation is received, the statutory authorities will do the needful in accordance with law. Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions: 1) W.P.(C.) No. 16911/2021 is disposed of setting aside Exts.P9 and P10 2) W.P.(C.) No. 17318/2021 is disposed of setting aside Exts.P6 and P8 3) If the petitioners have got any grievance about the W.P.(C).Nos.16911 & 17318 of 2021 21 non-disbursal of salary arrears based on the pay revision, the petitioners are free to approach the Department with appropriate representation. If such representation is received, the Department will do the needful in accordance with law. Sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** DM/SKS W.P.(C).Nos.16911 & 17318 of 2021 22 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17318/2021`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT CIRCULAR NO.270/2015/GED DATED 08.10.2015 ``` ``` Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.B(5)/34/2011/D.D.E DATED 17.10.2018 ISSUED BY R3 ``` ``` Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.B3/12762/14 DATED 10.12.2015 ISSUED BY DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOLLAM ``` ``` Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.41222 OF 2018 DATED 18.12.2018 Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF GO (MS) NO.3691/2019/GED DATED 19.09.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ``` ``` Exhibit P6TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.B(5)/16953/2014/DDE DATED 02.06.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ``` ``` Exhibit P7TRUE COPY OF REVIEW PETITION DATED 03.09.2020 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P8TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O(MS) 3424/2021/G.ED DATED 19.07.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ``` W.P.(C).Nos.16911 & 17318 of 2021 23 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16911/2021`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THAT ORDER NO.B5/16953/2014 DATED 28.03.2015 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P2TRUECOPYOFTHECIRCULARBEARING NO.H/235637/14 DATED 09.10.2014 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THAT ORDER GO(KI) N.270/2015/GEN EDU DATED 08.10.2015 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P4TRUECOPYOFTHECOMMUNICATION NO.58506/E3/2014/PE DATED 27.10.2015 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.B3/12762/2014 DATED 10.12.2015 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P6TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.B5/16953/2014 DATED 31.05.2017 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P7TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 13.06.2017 SUBMITTED BY TH 5TH PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P8TRUE COPY OF THE DATA FURNISHED UNDER THE RTI ACT DATED 10.05.2017 ISSUED BY PUBIC INFORMATION OFFICER, KOLLAM. Exhibit P9TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.B(5)/16953/2014/DDE DATED 02.06.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P10TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER GO(MS) NO.,3424/2021/G.ED DATED 19.07.2021 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P11TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WRIT APPEAL NO.1288 OF 2007 DATED 25.06.2009. Exhibit P12TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WRIT APPEAL NO.2112 OF 2012 DATED 26.02.2014. RESPONDENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R3(a)COPY OF SUSPENSION ORDER IS PRODUCED EXHIBIT R3(b)COPY OF CHECKED EID/UID DATA OF THE STUDENTS AS DESIRED EXHIBIT R3(c)COPY OF WRITTEN EXPLANATIONS AND THE ``` W.P.(C).Nos.16911 & 17318 of 2021 24 ||`EXPLANATIONS FROM PETITIONERS.`| |---|---| |`EXHIBIT R3(d)`|`COPY OF EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE HEAD`| ||`MASTER`| |`EXHIBIT R3(e)`|`COPY OF REVISED STAFF FIXATION ORDER FOR THE`| ||`YEAR 2014-2015`| |`EXHIBIT R3(f)`|`COPY`<br>`OF`<br>`GOVERNMENT`<br>`VIDE`<br>`LETTER`| ||`NO.68039/H2/2015/G.EDN.DTD 24.11.2016`| |`EXHIBIT R3(g)`|`COPY OF THE ORDER NO.SC2/27636/2015/DPI DTD`| ||`27.5.2015`| |`EXHIBIT R3(h)`|`COPY OF ORDER NO.SC2/27636/2015/DPI DTD`| ||`2.6.2015`| |`EXHIBIT R3(i)`|`COPY OF INTERIM ORDER BY THE HON’BLE HIGH`| ||`COURT`| |`EXHIBIT R3(j)`|`COPY OF DETAILED REPORT ASSESSED AN AMOUNT OF`| ||`RS.2,48,86,609/- AS THE LOSS SUSTAINED TO`| ||`GOVERNMENT AND THE AUDIT REPORTS.`| |`EXHIBIT R3(k)`|`COPY OF THE LETTER NO.H1/190/2017/G.EDN.`| ||`(H)DEPT. DTD.10.8.2017`| |`EXHIBIT R3(l)`|`COPY OF ORDER NO.4615/2017/G.EDN.(F)DPT.DTD`| ||`29.11.2017`| |`EXHIBIT R3(m)`|`COPY`<br>`OF`<br>`ORDER`<br>`NO.B5/16953/2014/DDE.`| ||`DTD.12.11.2018`| |`EXHIBIT R3(n)`|`COPY OF ORDER NO.B5/16953/2014/DDE DTD`| ||`2.6.2020`| |`EXHIBIT R3(o)`|`COPY OF ORDER NO.G.O(RT)NO.758/2019/G.EDN.DTD`| ||`27.2.2019`| |`EXHIBIT R3(p)`|`COPY OF AMENDED ORDER`| |`EXHIBIT R3(q)`|`COPY OF LETTER FROM THE DIRECTOR OF VIGILANCE`| ||`& ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU.`| |`EXHIBIT R3(r)`|`COPY OF GO(MS)NO.3424/2021/G.EDN DTD 19.7.2021`| |`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`|| |`Exhibit P13`|`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS`| ||`HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) 18053/2015 DTD. 18-03-`| ||`2016`| |`Exhibit P14`|`THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE`| ||`MENTIONED IN THE ABOVE FIXATION OF THE`| W.P.(C).Nos.16911 & 17318 of 2021 25 ``` PROCEEDINGS OF THE DEO NEYYATTINKARA DTD. 12-08-2010. ``` ``` Exhibit P15TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT FROM THE APPENDIX OF THE STAFF STRENGTH BETWEEN 2010 AND 2011 ISSUED BY DEO NEYYATTINKARA. ``` ``` Exhibit P16TRUE COPY OF THE DATA TAKEN BY THE CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT OF SSLC EXAM AND DEPUTY CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT OF MCHSS KOTTULAKONAM SCHOOL AND DULY SIGNED BY THEM DTD. 12-03-2012. ```