Loading...

Roy Wilfred vs State Of Kerala Represented By Its on 15 October, 2010

Kerala High Court
Roy Wilfred vs State Of Kerala Represented By Its on 15 October, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 31686 of 2010(I)


1. ROY WILFRED, JUNIOR HEALTH INSPECTOR
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS
                       ...       Respondent

2. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES

3. DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH )

4. SMT. MANEESHA

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.M.ANEESH

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :15/10/2010

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

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

                         W.P.(C).No.31686 of 2010

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

               Dated this the 15th day of October, 2010

                                J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is a Junior Health Inspector Grade II working at

the Primary Health Centre, Pazhampalakod. He was suspended from

service by Ext.P4 order on the allegation that the petitioner’s wife, the

4th respondent herein, made a representation to the 1st respondent

seeking permission to prosecute the District Medical Officer and that

the same has been made to harass higher officers of the petitioner at

the instigation of the petitioner. The petitioner was suspended from

service on 3.12.2009. He wants revocation of the suspension. He

therefore, seeks the following reliefs:

“i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or other appropriate Writ, direction or
order to call for all records leading Exhibits P6 order and to
quash the same as illegal and unlawful.

ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or
direction and direct the respondents 1 and 2 to reinstate the
petitioner into service at the earliest.

iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or
direction and direct the respondents 1 and 2 to grant all the
benefit to the petitioner for the period of suspension.

iv) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or
direction and direct the respondents 1 and 2 to pay an amount
of Rs. One lakh as compensation for the illegal actions.”

2. From the documents, I find that Ext.P6 charge memo has

been issued to the petitioner on 13.5.2010 and the petitioner has

submitted Ext.P7 statement of defence also. That being so, it is only

w.p.c.31686/10 2

appropriate that disciplinary proceedings be completed expeditiously.

3. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also.

4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I dispose of this

writ petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent to complete the

disciplinary proceedings initiated by Ext.P6 memo of charges, as

expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three 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

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information