Court quashed suspension order against a petitioner who was transfered after working at Kochi Corporation, ordering the municipality to consider his reinstatement claim within two weeks in light of others' reinstatement.
Directed second respondent to consider petitioner's claim for reinstatement and review Ext.P7 order within two weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 29TH MAGHA 1931
WP(C).No. 521 of 2010(M)
PETITIONER(S):
K.GOPALAKRISHNAN,OVERSEER GRADE.II, SHORNUR MUNICIPALITY,SHORNUR.
BY ADVS. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN SMT.DHANYA CHANDRAN SRI.A.HAROON RASHEED
RESPONDENT(S):
ADV. PRAVEEN K JOY STANDING COUNCEL-R1 SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN FOR R2 SRI.K.HARIDASAN (PATTAMBI) FOR R2
GOVT. PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH-R3
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) NO.521/2010
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
| Ext.P1: | True copy of complaint given by K.S. Shabeer before the 1strespondent dated 1.4.09. |
|---|---|
| Ext.P2: | True copy of complaint given by K.S. Shabeer before the 1strespondent dated 24.4.09. |
| Ext.P3: | True copy of complaint given by K.S. Shabeer before the 1strespondent dated 20.5.09. |
| Ext.P4: | True copy of complaint given by Sonnia Soman before the 1strespondent dated 3.4.09. |
| Ext.P5: | True copy of Order dated 22.10.09 in O.P.No.888/09 of Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions. |
| Ext.P6: | True copy of Order dated 19.11.09 in O.P.No.888/09 of Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions. |
| Ext.P7: | True copy of Order dated 11.1.2010 issued by the 2ndrespondent. |
| Ext.P8: | True copy of the order dated 30.12.2009 of the 1st respondent. |
| Ext.P9: | True copy of order dated 5.2.2010 of the 1strespondent. |
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
-------------------------------------------W.P.(C) NO. 521 OF 2010
Dated this the 18th day of February, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is presently working as Overseer Grade II in Shornur Municipality. While he was working as Overseer Grade II under the Corporation of Kochi, he was placed under suspension as per Ext.P7 order dated 11.1.2010 in connection with certain allegations. In fact, it was in pursuance of Ext.P6 order of the Ombudsman for the Local Self Government Institutions that the petitioner and two others named in Ext.P6 were placed under suspension. The grievance of the petitioner, is that while the two other persons, who were placed under suspension as per Ext.P8 order, were reinstated in service as per Ext.P9 order dated 5.2.2010, there is no justification at all in continuing to place him under suspension and that at any rate, Ext.P7 order of suspension is liable to be reviewed in view of the subsequent developments.
W.P.(C) NO. 521/2010
2
while working under the Corporation of Kochi. The other two persons, who were placed under suspension as per Ext.P8 order, were reinstated in service as per Ext.P9 and they are continuing under the Corporation of Kochi. In the case of the petitioner, he has already been transferred to Shornur Municipality. In the circumstances, there is substance in the contention of the petitioner that Ext.P7 order of suspension is liable to be reviewed. Therefore, there will be a direction to the second respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement, in effect to review Ext.P7, in the light of the aforesaid subsequent developments and pass appropriate orders within a period of two weeks from today.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)
sp/
W.P.(C) NO. 521/2010
3
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
W.P.(C) NO. 521/2010
JUDGMENT
18th February, 2010
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, suspended along with others who were later reinstated, is entitled to a review of his suspension order and reinstatement.
K. GOPALAKRISHNAN
CORPORATION OF KOCHI
SHORNUR MUNICIPALITY
STATE OF KERALA
C.T. RAVIKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
