High Court Kerala High Court

K.C.Sreelal vs The Manager on 3 December, 2009

Kerala High Court
K.C.Sreelal vs The Manager on 3 December, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 33213 of 2009(V)


1. K.C.SREELAL,VOCATIONAL INSTRUCTOR(VHSE),
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE MANAGER,D.V.V.H.S.S,THALAVOOR(P.O),
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,VOCATIONAL

3. THE DIRECTOR,VOCATIONAL HIGHER

                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM)

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :03/12/2009

 O R D E R
                T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                  W.P.(C). No.33213/2009-V
                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
           Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2009

                      J U D G M E N T

Aggrieved by the refusal to review the suspension

order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

Challenge is made against Exts.P1, P3 and P6.

2. The petitioner had been working as Vocational

Instructor (V.H.S.E) in D.V.V.H.S.School, Thalavoor, since

1998. He was suspended from service as per Ext.P1. By

Ext.P3, the order of suspension has been extended by the

first respondent-Manager until further orders also.

Earlier, the petitioner had filed Ext.P4 representation

before the third respondent-Director seeking to revoke the

order of suspension which was directed to be disposed of by

Ext.P5 Judgment of this Court in W.P.(C).No.26022/2007,

dated 24/08/2007. Ultimately, by Ext.P6, Ext.P4

representation was rejected by the Director.

3. The petitioner has been placed under suspension in

connection with C.C.No.1581/2007 filed before the Judicial

Magistrate of the I Class III, Kollam. The petitioner is

relying upon Ext.P7, whereby the said criminal case has

been compounded. It is the contention of the petitioner

that in the light of the above, suspension order has to be

withdrawn.

W.P.(C). No.33213/2009
-:2:-

4. The learned Government Pleader on instructions

submitted that the petitioner has not moved the Department

again for review of the order of suspension by relying upon

Ext.P7.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that a copy of Ext.P7 has been forwarded to the third

respondent-Director.

6. If the petitioner desires a review of the order of

suspension on new grounds, he will be free to file

appropriate representation along with a copy of Ext.P7,

before the third respondent. If such a representation is

filed within three weeks from today, the third respondent

will consider the same in accordance with law and pass

appropriate orders within a period of two months after

hearing the petitioner and the Manager. The writ petition

is disposed of as above. No costs.

(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)

ms