IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 22093 of 2010(J)
1. S.SUGUNANANDAN, S/O.K.R.NARAYANAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR, MUSEUMS AND ZOO,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.SREEKUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :15/07/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 22093 OF 2010 (J)
=====================
Dated this the 15th day of July, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner challenges Ext.P10.
2. By order dated 6/3/07, petitioner who was then a
Senior Head Clerk, was promoted as Junior Superintendent.
Subsequently, along with two others, petitioner was placed under
suspension w.e.f. 5/3/08, for grave financial irregularities. Later
by order dated 11/12/08, petitioner and others were reinstated in
service and the case was referred to Vigilance Tribunal for a
detailed enquiry.
3. At the time when the petitioner was suspended on
4/3/08, petitioner was one day short for completing the required
period of probation. He therefore submitted requests for
declaration of his probation after joining duty and accordingly
probation was declared by order dated 19/2/09 reckoning one day
from his reinstated service. This was subsequently found to be
irregular as one day from the reinstated service was taken at a
time when disciplinary proceedings were pending against the
petitioner.
WPC No. 22093/10
:2 :
4. Thereupon notice was issued calling upon the
petitioner to show cause why the probation declared as per Ext.P7
shall not be cancelled, to which the petitioner submitted his reply.
The proceedings were finalized by Ext.P10 cancelling the order
dated 19/2/09 declaring the probation and the petitioner is
ordered to be on probation till disciplinary proceedings against
him is completed. It is this order, which is under challenge.
5. Evidently, at the time when the petitioner was placed
under suspension, he had not completed the required period of
probation. Therefore, the shortage was made up by adding one
day from his reinstated service. When that order was passed,
disciplinary proceedings were pending against the petitioner. It is
on account of that fact that the probation was cancelled.
Declaration of probation requires completion of service for the
prescribed period and also the service should be satisfactory.
6. From the above, although it is evident that the
petitioner has completed the required length of service, on
account of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the
Authority has concluded that the service of the petitioner is not
WPC No. 22093/10
:3 :
satisfactory. This obviously enables the appointing authority not
to declare the probation of the petitioner, which has been done by
Ext.P10. I do not find anything erroneous in Ext.P10.
Writ petition fails and is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp