Disposed

K.v.Vasanthy v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Dec 2008WP(C)/34986/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, an Assistant Treasury Officer, challenged the lapse of nearly three years in disciplinary proceedings concerning her suspension. The court directed the Director of Treasuries to pass orders regularizing the suspension period after an opportunity of being heard. The order was to be completed within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Director of Treasuries to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders regularizing the suspension period after an opportunity of being heard within two months.

K.v.Vasanthy Vs State of Kerala — 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

FRIDAY, THE 12TH DECEMBER 2008 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA 1930

¶5

WP(C).No. 34986 of 2008(M)

PETITIONER(S):

K.V.VASANTHY, ASSISTANT TREASURY OFFICER DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICE, KOZHIKODE,

¶10

KOZHIKODE - 20.

¶11

BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD

¶12

SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM)

¶13

RESPONDENT(S):

¶14

¶15

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT,GOVRNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 1,

¶16

THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF TREASYRUESM THITUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶17

BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.

¶20

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

¶21

W.P.(C)No. 34986 of 2008

¶22

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

¶23

Dated this the 12^th day of December 2008

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Heard Sri.Dr.K.P.Satheesan, the learned counsel appearing

¶26

for the petitioner and Smt.Anu Sivaraman, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶27

The petitioner is presently working as Assistant Treasury Officer in the District Treasury Office at Kozhikode. While she was working as Junior Superintendent in the Additional Sub Treasury at Kozhikode, she was placed under suspension by Ext.P4 order dated 21.3.2005 passed by the Director of Treasuries. Later Ext.P7 memo of charges was issued and served on the petitioner. The petitioner submits that though she submitted Ext.P8 reply to the memo of charges, as early as on 20.12.2005, no enquiry was conducted thereafter and that as a matter of fact no steps have been taken to proceed with and complete the disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner further submits that she was reinstated in service by order passed on 2.5.2007 and thereafter by Ext.P9 order dated 16.7.2008, the Director of Treasuries promoted her to the category of Assistant Treasury Officer. The grievance voiced by the petitioner in this Writ Petition is that till date orders have not been passed regualrising the period of suspension. The petitioner has in Ext.P10 representation dated 23.9.2008 moved the Director of Treasuries requesting him to

¶28

W.P.9C)No.34986/2008 2

¶29

pass orders regularising the period of suspension. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner inter alia prays for a direction to the Director of Treasuries, the second respondent herein, to consider and pass orders on Ext.P10 representation.

¶30

The pleadings disclose that the petitioner was placed under suspension by Ext.P4 order dated 21.3.2005 and later reinstated in service on 2.5.2007. In the meanwhile though Ext.P7 memo of charges was issued on 4.11.2005 and the petitioner submitted Ext.P8 reply on 20.12.2005, no follow up action was taken. For the past nearly three years, no progress has been made in the disciplinary action initiated against the petitioner. In these circumstances, the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P10 deserves to be considered on the merits and a decision taken thereon. In these circumstances, I dispose of this Writ Petition with a direction to the second respondent to consider the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P10 and pass orders thereon, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. This shall be done within a period of two months from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment.

¶31

P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE

¶32

css/

K.v.Vasanthy v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.v.Vasanthy v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Vijayakumar and Others Vs State of Kerala and Others

M.K.Jaffar and Others Vs State of Kerala and Another

Sankaran Namboothiri N.S. Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

Dr.Prasannakumari Vs State of Kerala and Another

Mohana Dasan.v Vs the Director of Panchayats

S.Sivanandan Vs State of Kerala & Others