IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 5815 of 2010(B)
1. K.S.SASIKUMAR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR,
3. THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS,
For Petitioner :SMT.K.SUNITHA VINOD
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :23/02/2010
O R D E R
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P. (C) No. 5815 OF 2010
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is a Municipal Engineer under the Local
Self Government Department. As per Ext.P1 order dated
18.9.2009, the petitioner was placed under suspension in
contemplation of the disciplinary proceedings. It is challenging
the said order of suspension, this writ petition has been filed.
2. The order of suspension is challenged on various
grounds. It is contended that the allegations based on which he
was placed under suspension are absolutely unsustainable and
there is no truth in the allegations. In fact, the petitioner has
earlier approached this court by filing WP(C)No. 27200/2009
and the same was disposed as per Ext.P4 judgment granting the
petitioner liberty to file a petition under Rule 10(6) of the Kerala
Civil Services(Classification, Control and Appeal)Rules, 1960 and
with a direction the first respondent consider and pass orders,
in case he files such a petition. Thereafter, he filed Ext.P5
petition dated 18.11.2009 before the first respondent. Even
after its receipt no action was taken thereon within the time
limit prescribed, it is submitted. It is further submitted that in
the meanwhile as per Ext.P7 dated 5.2.2010, one M. Radha, who
WPC.5815 of 2010
: 2 :
was placed under suspension along with the petitioner in
connection with the same alleged incident was reinstated in
service. Even thereafter, Ext.P5 remains undisposed of.
3. The petitioner submits that it was against Smt.Radha
that action was firstly initiated in connection with the alleged
incident that led to their suspension and as per Ext.P7 she was
reinstated keeping all disciplinary proceedings pending.
In the said peculiar circumstances, this Writ Petition is
disposed of as hereunder:-
The petitioner will be at liberty to file a representation
supplementing the contentions taken in Ext.P5 in the light of
Ext.P7. The petitioner may do so within a period of one week
from today. In case the first respondent did not consider
Ext.P5 and passed orders thereon till date, then that shall not be
done within 10 days from today so as to enable the petitioner to
file representation for which liberty has been given. In case,
such a representation is received that shall be considered along
with Ext.P5 petition and orders shall be passed thereon within
one month from today.
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)
jma