Dismissed

R.Rajesh v. State of Kerala and Others

Kerala HC16 Feb 2010WP(C)/3762/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition for the recovery of the petitioner's liberty, the Court disposed of the matter invoking its powers. The petitioner, a Village Officer, remained suspended pending investigation. The government represented that a charge sheet was filed and awaited the Vigilance Department's report. The Court directed the third respondent to review the suspension order expeditiously. Specificall

What did the court decide?

Directed the third respondent to review the suspension order expeditiously and within two weeks of receipt of the report from the Vigilance Department.

R.Rajesh Vs State of Kerala and Others — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 27TH MAGHA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 3762 of 2010(U)

PETITIONER(S):

R.RAJESH, VILLAGE OFFICER (UNDER SUSPENSION), MANNANKANDAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT, RESIDING AT OLEDATH HOUSE, MANAKAD.P.O., THODUPUZHA.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.KRB.KAIMAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL SRI.V.MADHUSUDHANAN SRI.T.ISSAC

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

¶13

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER FOR LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI.

¶16

BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P. NANDAKUMAR.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶19

W.P.(C). NO. 3762 OF 2010

¶20

Dated this the 16^th day of February, 2010

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The petitioner was working as Village Officer in Mannankandam in Idukki District. He was placed under suspension as per Ext.P1 dated 27.07.2009. It would reveal that he was placed under suspension based on the registration of vigilance case No.4/09/IDK by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau. Against Ext.P1 order, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P3 representation before the third respondent under Rule 10(6) of K.C.S (C.C &A) Rules, 1960. Since no orders are passed thereon, the petitioner has filed Ext.P4 representation before the second respondent. However, no order was passed on Ext.P4 as well. It was in the said circumstances that this Writ Petition has been filed

¶23

When the matter was taken up for admission, the learned Government Pleader, on instruction, submitted that a charge sheet has been submitted by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau before the Court of Enquiry Commission and Special Judge, Kottayam and the third respondent is awaiting a report from the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau. On

¶24

W.P.(C) NO.3762 of 2010

¶25

¶26

receipt of such a report from the Vigilance Department, the order by which the petitioner was placed under suspension will be reconsidered in the light of the said report. In the circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the third respondent to review the suspension order expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of such a report from the Vigilance Department.

¶27

(C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)

¶28

spc

¶29

W.P.(C) NO.3762 of 2010

¶30

¶31

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶32

W.P.(C). NO.3762/2010

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

16^th February, 2010

R.Rajesh v. State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Rajesh 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

T.Vasantha Vs Raveendran

Sreedharan T. Vs State of Kerala

Krishnan Nair Vs State of Kerala

M.v.Gopalan Vs State of Kerala & Others

C.K.Muraleedharan Vs State Warehousing Corporation and Anr.

M.Rajendran Vs State of Kerala and Others