IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 34986 of 2008(M)
1. K.V.VASANTHY, ASSISTANT TREASURY OFFICER
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF
For Petitioner :DR.K.P.SATHEESAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :12/12/2008
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
======================================
W.P.(C)No. 34986 of 2008
======================================
Dated this the 12th day of December 2008
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.Dr.K.P.Satheesan, the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner and Smt.Anu Sivaraman, the learned Special
Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioner is presently working as Assistant Treasury
Officer in the District Treasury Office at Kozhikode. While she was
working as Junior Superintendent in the Additional Sub Treasury
at Kozhikode, she was placed under suspension by Ext.P4 order
dated 21.3.2005 passed by the Director of Treasuries. Later
Ext.P7 memo of charges was issued and served on the petitioner.
The petitioner submits that though she submitted Ext.P8 reply to
the memo of charges, as early as on 20.12.2005, no enquiry was
conducted thereafter and that as a matter of fact no steps have
been taken to proceed with and complete the disciplinary
proceedings. The petitioner further submits that she was
reinstated in service by order passed on 2.5.2007 and thereafter
by Ext.P9 order dated 16.7.2008, the Director of Treasuries
promoted her to the category of Assistant Treasury Officer. The
grievance voiced by the petitioner in this Writ Petition is that till
date orders have not been passed regualrising the period of
suspension. The petitioner has in Ext.P10 representation dated
23.9.2008 moved the Director of Treasuries requesting him to
W.P.9C)No.34986/2008 2
pass orders regularising the period of suspension. In this Writ
Petition, the petitioner inter alia prays for a direction to the
Director of Treasuries, the second respondent herein, to consider
and pass orders on Ext.P10 representation.
3. The pleadings disclose that the petitioner was placed under
suspension by Ext.P4 order dated 21.3.2005 and later reinstated
in service on 2.5.2007. In the meanwhile though Ext.P7 memo of
charges was issued on 4.11.2005 and the petitioner submitted
Ext.P8 reply on 20.12.2005, no follow up action was taken. For
the past nearly three years, no progress has been made in the
disciplinary action initiated against the petitioner. In these
circumstances, the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P10
deserves to be considered on the merits and a decision taken
thereon. In these circumstances, I dispose of this Writ Petition
with a direction to the second respondent to consider the request
made by the petitioner in Ext.P10 and pass orders thereon, after
affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. This shall
be done within a period of two months from the date on which
the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment.
P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE
css/