IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 430 of 2010(C)
1. C.K.SASIDHARAN.B., NO.1866,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. HINDUSTAN INSECTICIDES LIMITED,
... Respondent
2. THE OFFICER IN CHARGE, HINDUSTAN
For Petitioner :SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN
For Respondent :SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :10/02/2010
O R D E R
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO. 430 OF 2010
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of February, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is working as Accountant Special Grade under the
first respondent. While so, he was placed under suspension, as per Ext.P3
order dated 1.1.2010, on the allegation that he had supplied information
obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005, with respect to the
educational qualification of another employee under the first respondent
in order to facilitate action against the first respondent-company. In fact,
Ext.P3 is a composite order, that is, suspension order coupled with a show
cause notice. As per Ext.P3, besides placing the petitioner under
suspension, he was also asked to show cause as to why disciplinary action
should not be taken against him for the alleged misconduct.
2. When the matter came up for admission, the learned counsel for
the respondents, on instruction, submitted that Ext.P3 need be treated only
as a show cause notice and that the petitioner will be given liberty to offer
his explanation with respect to the allegations made therein and that
W.P.(C) NO. 430/2010 2
appropriate orders will be passed only after considering such explanation.
Learned counsel further submitted that though Ext.P3 is an order of
suspension, it will not be treated as such and that the period under which
the petitioner was placed under suspension, based on Ext.P3, would be
regularised.
3. The above submissions are recorded. In view of the aforesaid
submissions, the petitioner may submit his explanation with respect to the
allegations levelled against him, as per Ext.P3, within a period of two
weeks from today. If such an explanation is received, the same shall be
considered in accordance with law. Needless to say that, in view of the
submissions recorded, the petitioner shall be reinstated into the service
forthwith.
The Writ Petition is accordingly closed.
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)
sp/
W.P.(C) NO. 430/2010 3
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
W.P.(C) NO. 430/2010
JUDGMENT
10th February, 2010