IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 26878 of 2008(Y)
1. K.BABURAJAN PILLAI, S/O.LATE P.KUTTAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE COIR
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.BABY
For Respondent :SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN, SC, COIRFED
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :24/09/2008
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO. 26878 OF 2008 (Y)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of September, 2008
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner was placed under suspension on the
ground of proposed disciplinary proceedings. That was followed
by enquiry, by different enquiry officers, one after another. It is
stated that one among the enquiry officers conducted two
sittings. But, the enquiry is not yet completed. The petitioner
challenges Ext.P8 whereby another person is appointed as
enquiry officer. He is stated to be the fourth among those to be
appointed as enquiry officer. The fact remains that the
suspension was revoked and the petitioner joined duty on 12-8-
2003. This means that one of the questions that will continue to
survive is the question as to how the period of suspension has to
be treated. That will depend upon the outcome of the disciplinary
proceedings. For that, the disciplinary proceedings have to be
concluded within a time limit. Even Exhibit P8 dated 3-6-2008
requires the enquiry officer to complete the enquiry and submit a
report within 15 days. But nothing has been done.
W.P.(C) No.26878/2008
– 2 –
For the aforesaid reasons, without entering on merits
of the allegations raised by the petitioner, this writ petition is
ordered directing that the proceedings as per Exhibit P8 shall be
concluded, within an outer limit of two months from now.
Sd/-
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE
skr/24/9
// True copy //
P.A. to Judge.