High Court Kerala High Court

K.Krishnakumar vs Kollam Corporation Represented … on 16 September, 2010

Kerala High Court
K.Krishnakumar vs Kollam Corporation Represented … on 16 September, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 27827 of 2010(C)


1. K.KRISHNAKUMAR, U.D.CLERK,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. KOLLAM CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS
                       ...       Respondent

2. SECRETARY, KOLLAM CORPORATION,

3. DIRECTOR, URBAN AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.  K.SIJU

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :16/09/2010

 O R D E R
                           S.SIRI JAGAN, J.

                     ==================

                     W.P.(C).No. 27827 of 2010

                     ==================

              Dated this the 16th day of September, 2010

                            J U D G M E N T

The petitioner, while working as a PW Clerk in the Kollam

Corporation, was suspended from service pending enquiry, on

9.9.2009, by Ext.P2 order, issued by the 2nd respondent-Secretary of

the Kollam Corporation. The petitioner is challenging the said

suspension. The contention of the petitioner is that as held by this

Court in Kumar v. State of Kerala [2005 (4) KLT 396], the Secretary of

the Corporation does not have powers to suspend the petitioner.

2. In answer to the same, the learned standing counsel for

the Corporation points out that what is prohibited in the above said

decision is the suspension order passed by the Secretary on his own,

without reference to the Corporation. According to the learned

standing counsel, in this case, the petitioner has been suspended by

the Secretary as per orders of the Mayor and, therefore, the petitioner

cannot now take a stand that because of the said decision the

petitioner’s suspension by the Secretary of the Corporation, is

unsustainable. When confronted with this contention of the learned

standing counsel, the petitioner confines his relief for a direction to

respondents 1 and 2 to complete the disciplinary proceedings initiated

by his suspension, expeditiously.

2

3. Having heard both sides, I dispose of this writ petition with

a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to complete the disciplinary

proceedings initiated against the petitioner, by Ext.P2 suspension

order, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months

from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

sdk+                                               S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

         ///True copy///




                              P.A. to Judge