IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 13865 of 2008(A)
1. K.PRAMOD, S/O.KORAN, ASST.ENGINEER,
... Petitioner
2. K.SOMAN, S/O.KUNHAN, OVERSEAR GR:3,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.K.ABDUL RAHIM
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :02/06/2008
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J
-------------------
W.P.(C).13865/2008
--------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2008
JUDGMENT
First and second petitioners are working as
Assistant Engineer and IIIrd Grade Overseer respectively,
in the Water Resources Department. They are aggrieved
by Ext.P8 order passed by the Government suspending
them from service, pending enquiry. The order of
suspension has been passed by the Government taking
note of the recommendations made by the enquiry
committee, constituted to enquire into the incident at
Padinjarethara in the Banasura Sagar Project.
Apparently, there was a landslide mishap which occurred
at the site of the said project on 26.1.2008. Taking note of
the gravity of the situation, a committee was appointed to
look into the same. First petitioner, the Assistant
Engineer, was posted in the present place at BSP
(Banasura Sagar Project) Section 3/1 at Padinjarethara in
Wayanad District, on 1.12.2007. He assumed charge in
the said office on 1.12.2007. According to him, the work
of “BSP – Pandinjarethara Branch Canal – construction of
W.P.(C).13865/2008
2
covered and open Flume from CH 2100 to 2690″ was a
work being executed under BSP Section 1/1 since
February 2007 onwards. But after the first petitioner
took charge as Assistant Engineer in BSP Section 3/1,
through an order dated 28.12.2007, the Executive
Engineer transferred the said work from BSP Section 1/1
to BSP Section 3/1. Specific case of the petitioner is that
in spite of the said order, Ext.P1, Assistant Engineer,
who was in charge of BSP Section 1/1, did not hand over
any records pertaining to the said work, to the first
petitioner. By Ext.P2 dated 8.1.2008, the second
respondent issued a note to the first petitioner pointing
out that the contractor is not executing the work as per
the approved profile. First petitioner replied vide Ext.P3
and the same reads as follows:-
“As per the reference 1st cited, it is
ordered that the above work has been
transferred from section 1/1
Padinjarethara to Section 3/1
Padinjarethara. But the connected
W.P.(C).13865/2008
3records such as files, drawings, M.Books,
work memorandum etc, are not handed
over to me by the Assistant Engineer
Section 1/1 Padinjarethara till date. So I
cannot follow up the direction issued by
the Assistant Executive Engineer BSP Sub
division Padinjarethara. This is for your
information and necessary action.”
2. It therefore, seems to be the specific case of the
first petitioner that though a direction was issued vide
Ext.P1, to see that the charge of the project is handed
over to the first petitioner namely the Assistant
Engineer in Section 3/1, the same was not implemented.
Reference is made to Ext.P4 by which the Assistant
Executive Engineer issued a specific communication to
the Assistant Engineer, Section 1/1, wherein he was
directed to transfer the file and all connected documents
regarding the subject work to the Assistant Engineer,
Section 3/1, Padinjarethara. Ext.P4 would prima facie
indicate that Ext.P1 had not really been given effect to,
in the sense that the first petitioner did not get charge
W.P.(C).13865/2008
4
of the work in question at any point of time prior to
26.1.2008. First petitioner is aggrieved that in spite of
the same, he has been put under suspension, as if there
was a lapse on his part in relation to the landslide mishap
which occurred on 26.1.2008. The order of suspension
is therefore, challenged on the ground that the first
petitioner has no connection at all to the incident in
question and therefore, the Government had committed
an error in not ascertaining the concerned incumbents,
who were in charge of the work in question on the date
of mishap or during the relevant time.
3. Learned senior Government Pleader
Mr.Nandakumar had made available a copy of the
enquiry report submitted before the Government. I have
gone through the same. Paragraph 33 of the said report,
no doubt, affirms that the Assistant Engineer and
Overseer were responsible for the work in question and
it is therefore, that recommendation was made to place
both the Assistant Engineer and Overseer under
W.P.(C).13865/2008
5
suspension. It seems that the Government had
proceeded to place the first petitioner under suspension
on the premise that Ext.P1 had taken effect and the first
petitioner was in charge well before 26.1.2008. I do not
find any material to clearly indicate whether the
Government had really gone into the question before
passing the order of suspension. In my view, this is an
aspect which has to be engaged the serious attention
of the Government.
4. In so far the second petitioner is concerned, he
also has a contention that though he was an Overseer,
Section 1/1, he was in the administrative Office and was
not in charge of the site as such. In my view, that is a
matter which has to be considered by the appropriate
authority, if the second respondent files an application
under Rule 10(6) of the Kerala Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules. In the
result, writ petition is disposed of in the following
terms:-
W.P.(C).13865/2008
6
(i). Government shall specifically
consider the case of the first petitioner
that Ext.P1 had not been give effect to
and therefore, the first petitioner had
never been put in charge of any operation
of the work dealing with BSP,
Padinjarethara Branch Canal and
construction of covered and open Flume
from CH 2100 meters to 2690 meters.
(ii). If the first petitioner’s contention on
the basis of Exts.P1, P3 and P4 are found
to be correct, then the suspension of the
first petitioner is liable to be revoked and
necessary orders shall be passed by the
Government in that regard. To enable the
Government to do so, first petitioner may
file a representation pointing out these
aspects and also produce the relevant
materials in support of the contention.
This shall be done within a period of one
week from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment and the Government shall
pass orders on the same within a period of
four weeks from the date of receipt of
W.P.(C).13865/2008
7
such representation. Ext.P8 order of
suspension shall not be given effect to in
so far as the first petitioner is concerned,
till such fresh orders are passed by the
Government.
(iii). If the second petitioner files an
application for revocation of suspension in
so far as he is concerned, in terms of Rule
10(6) of the Kerala Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeals)
Rules, it shall be considered and
appropriate decision taken thereon, within
a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of such application, along with the
copy of the judgment. Both the petitioners
shall be heard, if there is a proposal to
pass an order adverse to them.
V.GIRI,
Judge
mrcs