High Court Kerala High Court

Elsykutty C.George vs State Of Kerala on 31 March, 2010

Kerala High Court
Elsykutty C.George vs State Of Kerala on 31 March, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 9787 of 2010(W)


1. ELSYKUTTY C.GEORGE, W/O.M.J.GEORGE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
                       ...       Respondent

2. PATHANAMTHITTA MUNICIPALITY,

3. THE MUNICIPAL SECRETARY,

4. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

5. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPALITIES,

6. THE CHAIRMAN,

7. PETER KUNJUMMEN,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR

 Dated :31/03/2010

 O R D E R
                          C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.

              ```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
                      W.P.(C) No. 9787 of 2010 W
              ```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
                Dated this the 31st day of March, 2010

                             J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is working as Health Supervisor under

the 2nd respondent. This writ petition has been filed challenging

Ext.P3 order dated 09-03-2010 whereby the 3rd respondent placed

the petitioner under suspension. The contention of the petitioner,

essentially, is that as per Section 15(6) of the Kerala Municipalities

Act, 1994, the 3rd respondent has no jurisdiction to place the

petitioner under suspension. The Chair Person of the Municipality

is the competent authority to place the employees of the

Municipality under suspension. Therefore, according to the

petitioner, on account of total lacking of jurisdiction on the part of

the 3rd respondent in issuing Ext.P3 order, it is liable to be set

aside. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel for

the petitioner placed reliance on a decision of this Court in W.P(C)

No.21559/2009 dated 03-08-2009. The learned counsel for the 2nd

respondent fairly concedes that the issue in this writ petition is

squarely covered by the said judgment. In fact, on going through

WPC.9787/2010
: 2 :

the said judgment, I am of the opinion that Ext.P3 is liable to be set

aside in the light of the aforesaid judgment. Accordingly, Ext.P3 is

set aside.

2. Consequentially, the petitioner is liable to be re-

instated in service forthwith. However, it is made clear that this

judgment will not stand in the way of the authority competent to

initiate action in accordance with law. Needless to say that since

Ext.P3 order is ab initio void on account of lacking of jurisdiction,

the petitioner shall be treated to have been in service without any

break.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

(C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)

aks

// True Copy //

P.A. To Judge