Quashed

M.S.Sajeev Kumar v. State of Kerala and Others

Kerala HC15 Dec 2008WP(C)/31396/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court quashed an order rejecting a request to revoke a suspension of a Drugs Inspector. It held the petitioner was denied a reasonable hearing opportunity due to short notice and lack of stated reasons, directing the Controller to reconsider. The judgment was heard and delivered on 15 December 2008.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P6 order quashed; Drugs Controller directed to reconsider with proper notice and hearing; fresh orders to be passed on or before 31.1.2009.

M.S.Sajeev Kumar Vs State of Kerala and Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2008 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1930

¶5

WP(C).No. 31396 of 2008(K) --------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

¶8

M.S.SAJEEV KUMAR, DRUGS INSPECTOR (UNDER SUSPENSION), OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DRUGS CONTROLLER, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE, NOW RESIDING AT 23/320 (A), ANAND VILLA, THALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN SRI.P.A.HARISH

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

THE DRUGS CONTROLLER, DRUGS CONTROL DEPARTMENT, RED CROSS ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT DRUGS CONTROLLER, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE.

¶15

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR FOR R2

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

W.P.(C)No.31396/2008

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶20

EXT.P1	TRUE COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER DTD.24.9.2007.
EXT.P2	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.1.4.2008.
EXT.P3	TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)14992/2008 dtd,22.5.2008.
EXT.P4	TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE LAW OFFICER OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P5	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.14.7.2008.
EXT.P6	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P7	TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P8	TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT.
EXT.P9	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, WAYANAD.

TRUE COPY

P.A.TO JUDGE

css/

P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.

====================================== W.P.(C)No.31396 of 2008

¶26

====================================== Dated this the 15^th day of December 2008

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

Heard both sides.

¶29

The petitioner, an officer in the category of Drug Inspector was placed under suspension by Ext.P1 order dated 24.9.2007 passed by the Drugs Controller. Seeking a review of Ext.P1 order of suspension, he submitted Ext.P2 representation before the Drugs Controller and thereafter filed W.P.(C) No.14992 of 2008 in this Court. By Ext.P3 judgment delivered on 22.5.2008, this Court disposed of the said Writ Petition with a direction to the Drugs Controller to consider Ext.P2 representation and pass orders thereon within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It was also directed that if the Drugs Controller proposes to pass an order adverse to the petitioner, he shall be heard before such orders are passed. Later the respondents moved for extension of time and that request was granted, extending the time to comply with the direction in Ext.P3 judgment till 31.8.2008. Thereafter by Ext.P6 order passed on 29.8.2008, the Drugs Controller rejected Ext.P2. Ext.P6 is under challenge in this Writ Petition.

¶30

Ext.P6 discloses that the Drugs Controller had informed the petitioner over his mobile phone at 7.25 p.m. on 28.8.2008 that a personal hearing will be conducted on 29.8.2008. The Drugs

¶31

W.P.(C)No.31396 of 2008 2

¶32

Controller has in Ext.P6 stated that the petitioner was not willing to attend the personal hearing. Apart from stating that the petitioner was not willing to attend the hearing, no other reason is stated as to why the order of suspension should be maintained and the request to revoke the order of suspension cannot be entertained. On a perusal of Ext.P6, it is evident that before it was passed the petitioner was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Though extension of time was granted by this Court and the Drugs Controller had time till 31.8.2008 to pass orders, he did not inform the petitioner sufficiently in advance that he should attend the hearing on 29.8.2008. Admittedly, it was only at 7.25 p.m. on 28.8.2008 that the Drugs Controller invited the petitioner over mobile to attend the hearing on the next day. In my opinion , the Drugs Controller ought to have given the petitioner a reasonable time to attend the hearing and should not have expected the petitioner to rush to Thiruvananthapuram leaving aside everything else at such short notice. Further no reasons are stated in Ext.P6 to reject the request for revocation of suspension. In these circumstances, I quash Ext.P6 and direct the Drugs Controller to reconsider the matter with notice to and affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Fresh orders in the matter shall be passed on or before 31.1.2009. The Drugs Controller shall give

¶33

W.P.(C)No.31396 of 2008 3

¶34

the petitioner at least three clear days notice to attend the hearing. It will be open to the petitioner to supplement Ext.P2 by filing a further representation. It is clarified that no further extension of time will be granted and that the Drugs Controller shall pass final orders in the matter on or before 31.1.2009.

¶35

P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE

¶36

css/

M.S.Sajeev Kumar v. State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.S.Sajeev Kumar v. State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.v.Vasanthy Vs State of Kerala

Dr.Prasannakumari Vs State of Kerala and Another

Mohana Dasan.v Vs the Director of Panchayats

Prof.K.M.Varghese Vs Sri.K.a.Hashim

V.I.Krishnan Thamban Vs the Director of Urban Affairs

Mahindra and Mahindra Fin. Ltd., Kochi Vs the Regional Transport Officer and Ors.