JUDGMENT : Shircy V., J. The appellant, an Upper Primary School Assistant, approached this Court on various occasions while his legal and genuine rights were trampled upon by the manager of the school in which the teacher is employed. This appeal is filed challenging the Judgment of the learned single judge dated 26.05.2015 in W.P. (C) No. 766 of 2012 of this Court. 2. The facts in a nutshell are as under: The appellant was appointed as an Upper Primary School Assistant in Sitaram Upper Primary School, Kunisery, Palakkad on 01.06.1989. While he was working so, he was placed under suspension on 27.01.2000 as per Ext P1, by the 4th respondent, the Manager of the school. But the 3rd respondent, who is the Assistant Educational Officer, (AEO) refused to grant permission to extend the period of suspension beyond 15 days and directed to reinstate him under Rule 67(8) of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules. The 4th respondent Manager did not comply with the order and he filed O.P.No.5309 of 2000 before this Court challenging the order. But his attempt was not successful. Thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated as per the direction of the Government by an order dated 21.10.2000. Disciplinary proceedings proceeded against the appellant and penalty of withholding three increments without cumulative effect was imposed on him. It was not approved by the AEO. Subsequently it was modified as one increment with cumulative effect. This proposal was also rejected by the AEO. Thereafter, the Government reduced the punishment as censure by an order dated 27.5.2008. Then the 4th respondent regularized the period of suspension from 27.01.2000 to 23.10.2000 as eligible leave. Contending that the period of suspension has to be treated as duty and that he is entitled for all the benefits as per Rule 67(8) of Chapter XIV-A of KER, the appellant filed W.P. (C) No. 766 of 2012. 3. The 4th respondent in the writ petition contended that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellant for his disobedience, dereliction of duty, irresponsible attitude etc. and he was found guilty and penalty of censure was imposed under Rule 6(1) of Chapter XIV of KER. Hence, he is not entitled for the benefits contemplated under Rule 67(8) of Chapter XIV-A of KER. 4. and he was found guilty and penalty of censure was imposed under Rule 6(1) of Chapter XIV of KER. Hence, he is not entitled for the benefits contemplated under Rule 67(8) of Chapter XIV-A of KER. 4. In the writ petition upholding the contention of the respondents this Court found that, the appellant is not entitled for the benefits claimed as per the provisions of Rule 67(8) of KER, as the disciplinary proceedings, culminated in punishment. Aggrieved by the said judgment, he has come up with this appeal. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3 and the learned counsel for the respondents 4 and 5. 6. We are called upon to decide in this appeal, whether this appellant is entitled to the benefits provided under Rule 67(8) of Chapter XIV-A of KER and whether the punishment imposed on him is justifiable? 7. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as Upper Primary School Assistant in Sita Ram Upper Primary School, Kunissery, Palakkad as early as on 01.06.1989. While he was working there, the 4th respondent had suspended him on 27.01.2000 by Ext.P1 order. The AEO who is the 3rd respondent refused to accord sanction to extend his suspension beyond the period of 15 days but on the other hand directed to reinstate him in service as per Ext.P2. Then the 4th respondent has filed O.P. No. 5309 of 2000 to get the operation of the order stayed. But he was not successful. The 4th respondent also filed revision before the Government for an order to set aside the order of the AEO, but the Government rejected his request and thereafter as per the direction of the Government the appellant was reinstated on 24.10.2000. Ext.P3 is the order of the Government. The disciplinary proceedings against him continued and the 4th respondent imposed punishment barring his three increments without cumulative effect and the proposal was forwarded to the AEO for ratification. As per Ext.P4 order, the AEO refused to ratify the same and then 4th respondent modified penalty by withholding one increment with cumulative effect and again placed the said proposal for ratification before the AEO. But the AEO declined to accept the same also and rejected the proposal as per Ext.P5 order dated 27.01.2004. Thereafter, the appellant submitted a representation before the AEO to regularize the period of suspension. But the AEO declined to accept the same also and rejected the proposal as per Ext.P5 order dated 27.01.2004. Thereafter, the appellant submitted a representation before the AEO to regularize the period of suspension. Meanwhile the 4th respondent filed revision against the order of refusal of AEO to ratify the penalty proposed. Subsequently, the Government as per Ext P7 order dated 27.05.2008 reduced the penalty imposed to censure. Thereafter, the period of suspension was regularised as eligible leave by Ext P8 proceedings of the 4th respondent. Though appellant requested the Government to cancel the order, and also filed W.P.(C) No. 24283/07 before this Court, the Government did not interfere with the punishment imposed on the appellant as well on the decision to treat the period of suspension as eligible leave. Ext P10 is the order. This order was quashed in Ext P11 in W.P.(C) No. 171/2010 filed by the appellant and this Court directed the Government to pass appropriate orders after hearing both parties. But the Government rejected the prayer of the appellant to treat the period of suspension from 27.01.2000 to 23.10.2000 as duty for all purposes and consequently his request for pay and allowances for the said period were also rejected as per Ext.P12. So, in short the period under suspension from 27.01.2000 till he was reinstated on 24.10.2000 was not treated as duty so as to entitle him to claim pay and allowances. His claim that he is entitled for all benefits withheld treating his period of suspension, as duty was found against in W.P. (C) No. 766 of 2012 by the learned single judge. This appeal is filed by the unsuccessful writ petitioner. 8. The relevant part of judgment is extracted below and it reads as follows: "12. The petitioner was found guilty and he was imposed with penalty of censure as provided under Rule 6(1) of Chapter XIV KER. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the 4th respondent, censure is a formal and public act intended to convey that a person concerned has been guilty of some blame-worthy act or omissions for which, it has been found necessary to award him a formal punishment for good and sufficient reasons. It is different from a normal warning, admonition or reprimand which are not penalties recognised by the Kerala Education Rules, 1959. It is different from a normal warning, admonition or reprimand which are not penalties recognised by the Kerala Education Rules, 1959. Since the petitioner was found guilty and awarded with a statutorily recognised penalty of censure by the Government itself, he is not entitled to get the period of suspension treated as period on duty. The question of treating the period of suspension as period on duty arises only if it is found that the suspension was wholly unjustifiable. 13. The mere fact that the AEO did not approve the suspension of the petitioner is immaterial as ultimately, the punishment of censure was imposed upon the petitioner which was the culmination of disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for." His request is that the period during which he was kept out of service have to be treated as duty for all purposes and the entire monetary benefits have to be disbursed to him. 9. Rule 67 of Chapter XIV-A of KER deals with suspension. Rule 67(8), the relevant provision to decide the issue reads as follows: "67. Suspension: (1) The Manager may at any time place a teacher under suspension (a) when disciplinary proceedings against him are contemplated or are pending or (b) when a case against him, in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial or (c) when the final orders are pending in the disciplinary proceedings if the authority considers that in the then prevailing circumstances it is necessary, in public interest that the teacher should be suspended from service. ((2) to (7) omitted as not relevant for this appeal) (8) Where the orders of suspension is made by the manager he shall on the same day report the matter together with reasons for the suspension to the Educational Officer and were the suspension is in respect of Headmaster of Secondary school and Training school such reports shall be sent to the [Deputy Director (Education)] also in addition to the Educational Officer. The [Deputy Director (Education)] if the suspension is in respect of Headmaster of a Secondary school or Training School and the Educational Officer in other cases shall thereupon make a preliminary investigation into the grounds of suspension. The [Deputy Director (Education)] if the suspension is in respect of Headmaster of a Secondary school or Training School and the Educational Officer in other cases shall thereupon make a preliminary investigation into the grounds of suspension. If on such investigations the authority is satisfied that there was no valid ground for the suspension he may direct the manager to reinstate the teacher with effect from the date of suspension and thereupon the teacher shall forthwith be reinstated by the manager. If the teacher is not actually reinstated the teacher shall be deemed to have been on duty. It shall then be open to the Department to disburse the pay and allowances to the teacher as if he were not suspended and recover the amount so disbursed from the manager. If on such investigation it is found that there are valid grounds for such suspension, permission may be given to the manager to place the teacher under suspension beyond 15 days if necessary. The authority mentioned above shall pass orders permitting the suspension or otherwise within said 15 days." We have meticulously examined the records before us. It is revealed that the AEO found no justification in the order of 4th respondent against the appellant and so has not approved the order of suspension beyond the period of 15 days. So, a direction to reinstate him to duty was ordered. According to the learned counsel for the appellant as per Rule 67(8) of Chapter XIV-A of KER, the entire period during which he was kept out of service have to be treated as duty and the punishment imposed upon him in the enquiry is not at all a ground to deny the statutory right recognised under this provision. The learned single Judge rejected the claim of the appellant and dismissed the writ petition only on the finding that the disciplinary proceedings culminated in punishment. 10. On a mere reading of Rule 67(8) of Chapter XIV-A of KER, it is manifestly clear that this provision lays down some special benefits to a teacher who is kept out of service for no valid reason. If the suspension is not approved by the authority, the authority can direct to reinstate the teacher and thereupon the Manager shall forthwith reinstate the teacher in service and if the teacher is not actually reinstated, the teacher shall be deemed to have been on duty. If the suspension is not approved by the authority, the authority can direct to reinstate the teacher and thereupon the Manager shall forthwith reinstate the teacher in service and if the teacher is not actually reinstated, the teacher shall be deemed to have been on duty. It is not disputed that the AEO, the authority was satisfied that there was no valid ground or justification to extend the order of suspension and hence, directed to reinstate him, but the 4th respondent chose to disobey the order showing scant respect to the relevant legal positions apparently with knowledge of its consequences. 11. In Manager, S.V. High School Vs. State of Kerala & Others, 1983 KLT 151 this Court held that if the authority is satisfied that, valid grounds are not available for suspension, he may direct the manager to reinstate the teacher with effect from the date of suspension. If he is not actually reinstated, in the light of Rule 67(8) of Chapter XIV-A of KER the teacher shall be deemed to have been on duty from the date of suspension till reinstatement. It shall then be open to the department to disburse pay and allowances to the teacher as if he was not suspended and recover the amount so disbursed from the Manager. Here the authority conducted preliminary investigation and found no valid or reasonable ground justifying extension of the order of suspension. It is also significant to note that in-spite of directions from Government, the 4th respondent was not fair enough to disburse the legally entitled benefits to the appellant. So, in our opinion the finding of the learned single Judge that, as punishment has been imposed in the disciplinary proceedings the appellant is not entitled for the benefits under Rule 67(8) of Chapter XIV-A of KER, is not legally correct and not sustainable and hence the judgment is liable to be set aside. The culmination of the disciplinary proceedings in punishment will not in any way fetter the rights of the appellant to claim benefits under Rule 67(8) of Chapter XIV-A of KER. 12. In the writ petition there was also a prayer to quash Ext.P7 imposing penalty of censure under Rule 92(1) of Chapter XIV-A of KER. Proviso (i) of Rule 92(1)(d) of Chapter XIV-A of KER reads as follows: 92. 12. In the writ petition there was also a prayer to quash Ext.P7 imposing penalty of censure under Rule 92(1) of Chapter XIV-A of KER. Proviso (i) of Rule 92(1)(d) of Chapter XIV-A of KER reads as follows: 92. Revision:- (1)Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules the Government, may on their own motion or otherwise, after calling for the records of the case, revise any order passed by a subordinate authority [in respect of matters contained in this Chapter] which is made or is appealable under these Rules:- a. xx xx xx b. xx xx xx c. xx xx xx d. pass such other order as they deem fit; Provided that – (i) an order imposing or enhancing a penalty shall not be passed unless the person concerned has been given an opportunity of making any representation which he may wish to make against such enhanced penalty provided that such representation shall be based only on the evidence adduced during the enquiry. Rule 92 indicates that, enhanced penalty can be imposed by the Government only after providing an opportunity to the delinquent to make representation against the imposition of penalty based on the evidence adduced during enquiry. Here only a lesser punishment had been imposed on him. Hence, no prejudice had been caused to the appellant. A contention against that was rightly not accepted by the learned single Judge. 13. The upshot of the above discussion is that the appellant is entitled for all the benefits, during the period of suspension from 27.01.2000 to 24.10.2000 treating as duty, from the respondents. All the monetary benefits due to the appellant during the said period will be paid to him by the first respondent, State of Kerala within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment and then, the Government can recover the amount so disbursed from the 4th respondent, Manager. 14. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the judgment under challenge as prayed for. Writ Appeal is allowed. No costs.