IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 11593 of 2010(Y)
1. K.SASIKUMAR, CLERICAL ASSISTANT
... Petitioner
Vs
1. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. VICE CHANCELLOR,
3. SEXUAL HARASSMENT ENQUIRY COMMITTEE,
4. SMT.P.SHEREEFA BEEVI,
For Petitioner :SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN
For Respondent :SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, KERALA UTY.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :07/10/2010
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C). NO. 11593 OF 2010 Y
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of October, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who is working as Unskilled Clerical Assistant
in the University of Kerala, was placed under suspension pending
further action, as per Ext.P15 order dated 17.3.2010. The main relief
prayed for in the Writ Petition is to quash Ext.P15 order.
2. When the Writ Petition came up for consideration on
18.8.2010, a learned single Judge of this Court passed the following
order:
“When this matter came up for admission on
5.4.2010 and thereafter on 27.5.2010 this court directed
the learned standing counsel for the University to make
available the records pertaining to this case. When this
matter was taken up today, the learned standing counsel
appearing for the University made available the entire
records. Having gone through the records I am of the
view that this is a fit case wherein this Court should
admit the writ petition.
Admit. Issue notice.
W.P.(C) NO.11593 OF 2010
:: 2 ::
After going through the complaint made by the
fourth respondent, I am of the view that the proceedings
initiated against the petitioner based on the said
complaint is liable to be stayed. This will not stand in the
way of the official respondents to take action against the
petitioner in case the alleged action on the part of the
petitioner amounts to any misconduct. In the said
circumstances, it will be open to the petitioner to submit
a representation to the second respondent to revoke the
order of suspension within two weeks from today. In
case such a representation is received from the
petitioner, the second respondent shall look into the
same and pass appropriate orders thereon.”
3. The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent
submitted that subsequently, as per the order dated 14.9.2010, the
petitioner was directed to be reinstated pending finalisation of the
disciplinary proceedings. A copy of the order was made available to
me by the counsel for the fourth respondent and it is taken on record.
The order dated 14.9.2010 reads as follows:
“Shri K.Sasikumar, Unskilled Clerical Assistant
was placed under suspension vide the U.O. read as
paper 1, on the basis of a report of enquiry submitted by
W.P.(C) NO.11593 OF 2010
:: 3 ::
the Sexual harasment Enquiry Committee. The Hon’ble
High Court in its Interim Order read as paper 2, in W.P.
(C) No.11593 of 2010 filed by Shri K.Sasikumar,
observed that the proceedings initiated against him
based on the complaint is liable to be stayed and this
will not stand in the way of the University to take action
against him in case the alleged action on the part of the
petitioner amounts to any misconduct. The Hon’ble
High Court also observed that it will be open to the
petitioner to submit a representation to the Vice-
Chancellor to revoke the order of suspension within two
weeks from the date of the Order and the Vice-
Chancellor shall look into the same and pass
appropriate orders thereon. Shri K.Sasikumar in his
representation read as paper 3 requested to revoke his
suspension at the earliest.
After having considered the representation read
as paper 3 and in compliance of the directions of the
Hon’ble High Court, the Vice-Chancellor has ordered to
reinstate Shri K.Sasikumar, Unskilled Clerical Assistant
into service with immediate effect pending finalisation of
the disciplinary proceedings.
Shri K.Sasikumar, Unskilled Clerical Assistant is
posted in the Institute of Management in Kerala,
Thiruvananthapuram.”
W.P.(C) NO.11593 OF 2010
:: 4 ::
In the light of the order dated 14.9.2010 and also in the light of
the interim order passed by this Court on 18.8.2010, I do not think
anything survives in this Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is
accordingly closed. It is made clear that the contentions raised by all
the parties are left open to be considered at the appropriate stage.
(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge
ahz/