Judgment 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the first respondent in Letter No.8 dated 3.10.2007, quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with all attendant benefits. 2. The case of the petitioner is that she was placed under suspension by an order dated 3.10.2007 since five charges have been framed against her. The Enquiry Officer was appointed even before the explanation was offered by the petitioner. The petitioner has requested for furnishing copies of the documents so that she could give explanation and also sought for an appointment of an independent Enquiry Officer. 3. The case of the petitioner is that she was subjected to harassment and she has given a police complaint which was registered under Women Harassment Act, 1998. The District Elementary Educational Officer, Nagappattinam conducted the conciliation wherein it was agreed that the suspension would be revoked and the petitioner would be permitted to join duty with effect from 11.2.2008 and treat the suspension as leave period as per rules and the petitioner has agreed to withdraw the case instituted by her. As per the said agreement, she has given a letter to the police withdrawing the complaint. The case of the petitioner is that in spite of the withdrawal of the criminal case and in view of the Memorandum of Understanding between the parties, her suspension was not revoked and she was also not paid subsistence allowance. The petitioner’s case is that her suspension was not extended beyond the period of two months and in any event, the suspension cannot be extended beyond the period of four months. The petitioner submitted that the order of suspension should be set aside and she should be reinstated into service with all attendant benefits. 4. The second respondent has filed a counter stating that the petitioner was employed as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the first respondent-school and she was placed under suspension as she acted against the school management. Subsequently, on 30.11.2007, she was dismissed from service. The first respondent sent a representation on 11.2.2007 to the Additional Assistant Elementary Education Officer, Sembanarkoil. 4. The second respondent has filed a counter stating that the petitioner was employed as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the first respondent-school and she was placed under suspension as she acted against the school management. Subsequently, on 30.11.2007, she was dismissed from service. The first respondent sent a representation on 11.2.2007 to the Additional Assistant Elementary Education Officer, Sembanarkoil. While the proposals received from the Additional Assistant Elementary Education Officer, Sembanarkoil were under scrutiny with the second respondent, the petitioner filed the present writ petition and obtained interim stay on 25.4.2008 and the petitioner was allowed to join duty as the Secondary Grade Assistant Teacher on 3.6.2008 and she is working as on date. The respondent submits that the institution is an aided institution and the relevant 5 charges made against the petitioner, are mentioned below:- “1) Inducing some others for writing unanimous petitions; 2) Failed to follow the orders of Superiors; 3) Failed to discharge her duties; 4) Hindrance to the improvement of students education; 5) Induced the Parents and Students for her promotion.” 5. The respondent further stated that the petitioner has rejoined duty on 4.6.2007 and was working as on date and the only claim of the petitioner remains that regularization of the period of her suspension since the first respondent has made specific charges against the petitioner, the petitioner has got to offer explanation to the specific charges and the first respondent has to finalize disciplinary proceedings and thereafter only the period of suspension will be regularized as per the Rules. 6. The petitioner, in reply, contended that there was an agreement between the parties on 11.2.2008 even prior to the interim orders of this Court on 25.4.2008. The counter proceeds as if the Memorandum of Understanding has nothing to do with the issue on hand is totally not correct. The petitioner reiterated that when there is an undertaking that the period of suspension would be regularized taking the suspension period into account as one on leave in terms of the Rules and that there would be no further action by any one of the parties against each other. Even though the petitioner has been reinstated on 4.6.2007 as per the counter of the second respondent, there is no reference about the Memorandum of Understanding between the parties dated 11.2.2008 in the order of reinstatement issued to the petitioner on 2.6.2008. Even though the petitioner has been reinstated on 4.6.2007 as per the counter of the second respondent, there is no reference about the Memorandum of Understanding between the parties dated 11.2.2008 in the order of reinstatement issued to the petitioner on 2.6.2008. Since the relief sought for in the writ petition is very limited, this Court cannot grant the relief sought for by the petitioner. Now it is open to the petitioner to approach the authority concerned, requesting them, to act on the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding arrived at between the parties on 11.2.2008. From the various pleadings, it appears that pursuant to the promise given by the second respondent, the petitioner has withdrawn the criminal case. This Court expects the second respondent to act as a model employer and regularize the period of suspension in terms of the Rules taking into account the Memorandum of Understanding dated 11.2.2008 and give a quietus to the entire issue. 7. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.