IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 22932 of 2010(N)
1. K.MADHUSOODANAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :22/07/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO. 22932 OF 2010(N)
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2010
J U D G M E N T
While working as Executive Engineer(Irrigation) on
allegations of misconduct, petitioner was placed under suspension
by Ext.P3 order. He applied for revocation of the suspension and
that was rejected. That order was challenged before this court in WP
(c).No.33941/2008. The writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P16
judgment setting aside the Government Order rejecting the
petitioner’s request for revoking the suspension and directing that
the matter shall be considered as directed therein. It was also
directed that the disciplinary enquiry should be completed within
one year from the date on which it is ordered.
2. In pursuance to the directions in Ext.P16 judgment,
Government passed Ext.P17 order reinstating the petitioner on
condition that the disciplinary action will be proceded with and
finalised within one year and ordering that the mode of treatment
period of suspension will be decided later. Petitioner states that
there was no progress in the matter and that his claim for
WPC.No.22932 /2010
:2 :
promotion was overlooked. With that grievance he filed the writ
petition before the this court as W.P(c).No.5983/2010 and obtained
Ext.P19 interim order directing that his claim shall be considered by
a review DPC. Accordingly review DPC considered his claim for
promotion and revised the select list by Ext.P20 and he was
promoted to the post of Deputy Chief Engineer by Ext.P1 order.
3. In this writ petition what he submits is that the
respondents made no progress in the disciplinary action initiated
against him and that the time limit prescribed by this court in
Ext.P16 judgment and Ext.P19 order and the Government in
Ext.P17 order have expired. It is stated that since the respondents
themselves have committed default in completing the disciplinary
proceedings his period of suspension should be regularized. It is
with this grievance and seeking a direction in this regard the writ
petition is filed.
4. Admittedly, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against
the petitioner and in Ext.P16 judgment, this court directed that the
same shall be completed within one year from the date on which
disciplinary action is ordered. This direction was reiterated by the
WPC.No.22932 /2010
:3 :
Government in Ext.P17 order. These orders have been taken note of
and further directions in this behalf have been issued in Ext.P19
interim order passed by this court. In spite of the above, if as a
matter of fact, the disciplinary action is not completed within the
period specified in Ext.P16 judgment and Ext.P19 interim order, the
course open to the petitioner is to initiate proceedings against the
respondent for non compliance with the aforesaid directions.
However, that does not, mean that the petitioner can claim that he
should stand exonerated of the charges which are leveled against
him. Therefore at this stage respondents cannot be directed to pass
orders on the issue of regularization of his suspension period.
5. Therefore as at present the petitioner cannot seek a
direction for the regularization of his suspension and his remedy is
to initiate proceedings against the respondents, if he has a case
that they have not complied with the directions in Ext.P16 judgment
and Ext.P19 interim order passed by this court.
Writ petition fails and is dismissed.
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/
WPC.No.22932 /2010
:4 :