IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 11038 of 2010(D)
1. C.BALA KRISHNA WARRIOR
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :06/04/2010
O R D E R
C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No. 11038 of 2010 D
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 6th day of April, 2010
J U D G M E N T
While working as Secretary of Kanakari Grama
Panchayat, the petitioner was served with Ext.P1 memo of
charges dated 16-08-2006. The allegations pertain to
unauthorised expenditure of Panchayat Fund and such other
financial irregularities. Long later, he was placed under
suspension as per Ext.P3 dated 12-03-2008. The grievance of the
petitioner is that certain important and crucial aspects were not
taken into consideration by the respondents in ordering
suspension and also in continuing with the suspension of the
petitioner. As noticed earlier, the memo of charges was issued as
early as on 16-08-2006 and thereafter he was transferred from
Kanakari Grama Panchayat. It was while working in another
Grama Panchayat i.e., Bharananganam Grama Panchayat, that
the petitioner was placed under suspension as per Ext.P3 dated
12-03-2008. More than two years have lapsed since the order of
suspension. Though the suspension review committee had
WPC.11038/2010
: 2 :
convened on 09-07-2009, they have rejected the request of the
petitioner for reviewing Ext.P3 order of suspension. A perusal of
Ext.P9 would reveal that the aforesaid aspects were not seem to
have been considered by the respondents. That apart, about six
months have elapsed since Ext.P9. As per paragraph 17 of the
Mannual for Disciplinary Proceedings, the respondents are bound
to convene a meeting of the suspension review committee to
consider the prospects for reviewing the order of suspension in
respect of the persons, who are facing disciplinary proceedings.
2. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with a
direction to the respondents to take appropriate steps for
considering the question of reviewing Ext.P3 order dated 12-03-
2008. Needless to say that while considering the said question,
the respondents are bound to take into consideration the above
mentioned aspects, namely, the petitioner was placed under
suspension in connection with certain incidents occurred and
irregularities alleged to have been committed by him while working
as Secretary in Kanakari Grama Panchayat and at the time of
placing him under suspension, he was working in another Grama
WPC.11038/2010
: 3 :
Panchayat. The fact that it was after more than one year since the
initiation of disciplinary proceedings that he was placed under
suspension shall also be taken into consideration. Such an order
considering the aforesaid aspects shall be passed by the
competent authority among the respondents, within a period of
one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In
case the respondents arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner
cannot be reinstated in service pending disciplinary proceedings,
they shall take steps to complete the disciplinary proceedings,
including passing of final orders thereon, expeditiously, at any
rate, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy
of this judgment, considering the fact that Ext.P1 memo of charges
was issued as early on 16-08-2006. In case of failure to complete
the disciplinary proceedings as directed above, the petitioner shall
be reinstated in service forthwith.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
(C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)
aks