Disposed

Govindan C.P. v. the District Collector

Kerala HC6 Feb 2008WP(C)/4280/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner Village Extension Officer-II sought regularization of suspension period after acquittal in sexual offence case. Court remarked on acquittal quality but directed petitioner to first exhaust representation remedy before Government regarding leave treatment. Petition disposed pending further steps.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed with direction to petitioner to file representation challenging Ext.P4 and P6 orders before Government within one month.

Govindan C.P. Vs the District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 17TH MAGHA 1929

¶4

WP(C).No. 4280 of 2008(H)

PETITIONER:

GOVINDAN C.P., AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. KUNHAN, CHAKKANATHUPADI HOUSE, UDANIKARA, EDAPPAL POST, PIN-679576. NOW WORKING AS VILLAGE EXTENSION OFFICER-II, THANOOR BLOCK, THANOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE SRI.M.K.SUMOD SRI.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) SRI.V.G.SALEESH

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

¶12

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM.

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶14

THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶15

BY G.P.SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

V. GIRI, J.

¶18

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 4280 of 2008

¶19

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6^th day of February, 2008

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

While working as a Village Extension Officer-II, the petitioner was placed under suspension as per Ext.P1 order, apparently as a consequence of registration of crime against him in Thrithala Police Station. The period of suspension was from 16-1-1998 to 11-11-1999. The suspension of the petitioner was revoked under Ext.P2 order dated 3-11-1999. The aforementioned criminal case ultimately ended in Ext.P3 judgment in Sessions Case No.112/2000 on the file of the Sessions Court, Palakkad Division at Ottappalam. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the judgment held as follows:-

¶22

“6. The point:- The prosecution charge against the accused that he committed sexual intercourse with CW1 Geetha several times under a false promise of marriage. Even though as many as 18 witnesses had been cited, only the prosecutrix alone was examined as PW1. She proved her Ext.P1 First Information Statement before police, but she resiled from its contents and turned against the prosecution charge. What she deposed before Court is that it was with her consent that the accused had sexual intercourse with her. She also denied the prosecution charge that the accused raped her under a false promise of marriage. He was therefore declared hostile by the prosecution and the remaining witnesses were given up.

¶23

W.P.C.4280/08

¶24

¶25

7.The position therefore is that the prosecution charge against the accused without any evidence at all. The point is accordingly found against the prosecution.”

¶26

Accordingly, the petitioner was acquitted. The petitioner sought for regularizing the period of his suspension. By Ext.P4 order the 1^st respondent treated the period of suspension of the petitioner as a period of eligible leave and refused to grant full pay and allowances for the above period. The petitioner filed Ext.P5 appeal before the 2^nd respondent, which was rejected under Ext.P6 order. Under Ext.P6 order the Commissioner rejected the request stating that “the period of suspension can be treated as duty only in cases where the accused is wholly exonerated and the suspension is unjustifiable”. Ext.P6 is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that reading of Ext.P3 judgment would show that the petitioner's acquittal is an honourable one and therefore it has to be found that the suspension is unjustifiable. Prima facie I agree with the contention of the petitioner in this regard, but I refrain from expressing a final opinion as much as

¶28

W.P.C.4280/08

¶29

¶30

that the petitioner has an efficacious remedy before the Government against Ext.P6 order.

¶31

Hence, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

¶32

If the petitioner prefers a representation before the Government challenging Exts.P4 and P6 within a period of one month from today, the same shall be considered and appropriate decision taken by the Government with specific reference to paragraphs 6 and 7 of Ext.P3 judgment. Such decision shall be taken within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the representation.

¶33

The petitioner shall also produce a copy of the writ petition

¶34

along with a copy of this judgment before the 3^rd respondent for compliance.

¶35

V. GIRI, JUDGE.

¶36

mn.

¶37

W.P.C.4280/08 4

Govindan C.P. v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govindan C.P. v. the District Collector

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

Ponnamma Vs C.Rajagopalan Nair

Benny Jose Vs Returning Officer,Paraspara Sahaya Co-Op

P.M.Mathew Vs Kadavoor Scb Ltd.

Chandran Nair Vs the District Collector, Kollam & Others

K. Divakaran Vs the State of Kerala

P.Geetha Vs Kerala State Co.Op.Federation