IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 28416 of 2009(V)
1. S.RAJAN, BINDER(UNDER SUSPENSION),
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
... Respondent
2. KERALA HEALTH RESEARCH AND WELFARE
3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
4. SMT.USHA TITUS, MANAGING DIRECTOR,
5. R.LEELA, IPP PRESS,
6. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
7. P.SREEDHARAN NAIR,
8. M.S.MANOJ KUMAR,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.R.RAJESH
For Respondent :SRI.M.AJAY,SC,KERALA HEALTH RESEARCH&WE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :16/10/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J
-------------------
W.P.(C).28416/2009
--------------------
Dated this the 16th day of October, 2009
JUDGMENT
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.M.R.Rajesh
and Mr.M.Ajay learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2, 3,
4 and 6.
2. Petitioner, who is employed as a binder under the 2nd
respondent, was suspended pursuant to a complaint filed by the
5th respondent raising several allegations including certain
allegations of sexual harassment. The complaint was referred
to a Committee, in terms of the dictum of the Supreme Court in
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997 (6) SCC 241). It is
now admitted that an enquiry by the said Committee has been
completed and they have recommended for the registration of a
crime against the petitioner and a complaint has been
forwarded. They also recommended disciplinary proceedings.
But such disciplinary proceedings has not been initiated so far.
3. In the meanwhile, it is alleged that the petitioner while
under suspension, on 18.8.2009 had banged into the IPP press
and had assaulted Mr.Manoj Kumar, the 8th respondent.
W.P.(C).28416/09
2
Pursuant thereto, Ext.P28 show cause notice was issued. But
show cause notice has been issued requiring him to show cause
why his service should not be terminated. Petitioner has
submitted Ext.P30 objections refuting the allegations alleged in
Ext.P28 and also seeking a reinstatement in service.
4. On instructions, learned counsel for respondents 2, 3, 4
and 6 submits that Ext.P28 is only a show cause notice.
Petitioner’s explanation to Ext.P28 as Ext.P30 would be
considered and if the explanation is not found to be satisfactory,
then, a full fledged enquiry would be conducted and a
punishment in the nature of termination of the service, which is
a major punishment, would obviously be contemplated only
after such enquiry. Submission is recorded.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the
enquiry by the Committee constituted in terms of the directions
in Vishaka has been completed, it is not justified to continue to
place the petitioner under suspension. Learned counsel for the
2nd respondent submits that the question of continuing the
petitioner under suspension will be considered in the light of
the allegations contained in Ext.P28 also.
W.P.(C).28416/09
3
6. 3rd respondent shall within one month from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment, consider the question of
revoking the petitioner’s suspension. If a further enquiry
pursuant to Ext.P28, in spite of Ext.P30 explanation, is found to
be necessary, then, that may be proceeded with. But
nevertheless, the necessity to place the petitioner under
suspension should be independently considered. A decision in
the matter of revoking the suspension of the petitioner shall be
taken within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment. Petitioner shall be paid subsistence allowance
for the period during which he has been kept under suspension,
as per Rules. Other contentions raised by the petitioner are left
open.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
V.GIRI,
Judge
mrcs