Partly allowed

Dinesh Kumar D. v. the Director of Urban Affairs

Kerala HC28 Oct 2011WP(C)/23846/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court, Kerala disposed of a writ petition challenging a suspension order. The court directed the first respondent to finalise pending disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner within three months as per a letter dated 06.11.2010, avoiding fact-adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to finalise disciplinary proceedings within three months as per the letter dated 06.11.2010.

Dinesh Kumar D. Vs the Director of Urban… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2011 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 23846 of 2011(E)

¶6

--------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

¶9

DINESH KUMAR.D., AGED 50 S/O.DIVAKARAN, ASSISTANT ENGINEER IN MADHUR/MOGRAL PUTHUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH UNDER KASARAGOD BP IN KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANATHAPURAM.

¶15

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. A.J. JOSE.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No. 23846 of 2011(E)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶20

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF SUSPENSION BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 15/6/2007.

¶21

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE FILE CONTAINING THE REPORT OF THE PETITIONER.

¶22

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 406 FOR DEMOLITION.

¶23

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 9/10/2006. EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE FILE NOTE OBTAINED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.

¶24

EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT. EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25/6/2007. EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28/12/2007. EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29/12/2007 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶25

EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P11: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 7/11/2009. EXHIBIT P12(A): TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 11/11/2010.

¶26

EXHIBIT P12(B): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER 6/11/2010 ENCLOSED IN EXT.P12(A).

¶27

EXHIBIT P13: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 24/5/2011.

¶28

RESPONDANTS'S EXHIBITS

¶29

/TRUE COPY/

¶30

P.S. TO JUDGE.

¶31

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶32

W.P.(C) No.23846 OF 2011

¶33

......................................................................... Dated this the 28^th October, 2011

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

The writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P1 order of suspension and for other incidental reliefs.

¶36

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequently, the petitioner was reinstated in service without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings already initiated. Referring the Ext.P12(b) proceeding dated 06.11.2010 issued by the second respondent addressing the first respondent, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will be satisfied if a direction is given to the first respondent to have the proceedings finalised in terms of Ext.P12(b) within a reasonable time.

¶37

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

¶38

As per Ext. P12(b), the first respondent has been requested to pursue the matter in the following terms:

¶39

“(1) Cancel the order No.VI-9907/07 dtd.24.07.2009 issued by you, as it has been issued not in accordance with the provisions

¶40

¶41

W.P.(C) No.23846 OF 2011

¶42

contained in KCS(CC&A) Rules and Rule 55, Part I KSR.

¶43

(2) finalise the disciplinary action against Shri D. Dinesh Kumar as per KCS (CC&A) Rules and then submit proposals to Government to regularise the suspension period as per the Rules 55 & 56 of Part I KSR's.”

¶44

In the above circumstance, this Court does not propose to have a fact adjudication. The writ petition is disposed of, directing the first respondent to finalise the proceedings in terms of Ext.P12(b) and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months. It is made clear that the petitioner shall co-operate with the enquiry and shall not pursue any steps to get the same protracted.

¶45

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

¶46

Dinesh Kumar D. v. the Director of Urban Affairs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kumar D. v. the Director of Urban Affairs

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

B.Sanoosi Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Salam a Vs State of Kerala

N.Lakshmikutty Vs State of Kerala

A.Purushan Vs the Kerala Water Authority

Mini.P.v. Vs State of Kerala

Jayan.E.B Vs Kerala Public Service Commission & Ors.