Disposed

Ajith K. Thankachan v. Chief Engineer (Hrd and General)

Kerala HC19 Jan 2021WP(C)/12834/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, an Assistant Executive Engineer suspended for alleged bribery after remand, challenged the continuation of suspension nearly a year later. The Court held that suspension continues only if judicial proceedings are pending, directing a review committee to complete the process within one month.

What did the court decide?

Directing the competent Committee to review the suspension within one month and complete the process after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.

Ajith K. Thankachan Vs Chief Engineer (Hrd and General) — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 29TH POUSHA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.12834 OF 2020(D)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

AJITH K. THANKACHAN

¶8

AJITH BHAVAN, YMCA VETTIKKARA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, NOW R/AT CHERICKAL HOUSE, OLD BLOCK, MADAPPALLY, CHANGANASSERY (ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PONKUNNAM SUB DIVISION).

¶9

BY ADVS. SMT.T.S.MAYA (THIYADIL) SRI.P.Y.AHAMMED PHYSI

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 CHIEF ENGINEER (HRD AND GENERAL) KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALA BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.

¶12

2 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

¶13

P.H.DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM - 686 001.

¶14

*ADDL DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION R3 BUREAU, EAST RANGE, KOTTAYAM. PIN 686 001

¶15

***(ADDL R3 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 19.01.2021 IN IA.NO.1/2021 IN W.P(C).NO.12834/2020.)**

¶16

BY ADV. SMT.MARY BENJEMIN BY SRI.P.BENJAMIN PAUL, SC

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No.12834 OF 2020(D)

¶19

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

The petitioner has approached this Court impugning Ext.P3 order dated 26.02.2020, as per which, he has been placed under suspension on the allegation that he had been trapped red handed by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, while allegedly accepting bribe from a person by name, Sri.Shony P. Joseph. The petitioner says that the allegations made against him are completely untenable and baseless and therefore, that Ext.P3 order could not have been issued adding that in spite of the fact that it has been nearly one year after he was placed under suspension, no charge sheet has been issued to him by the competent Authority of the Kerala Water Authority.

¶22

Smt.T.S.Maya, learned counsel for the petitioner, in addition to the above, submitted that her client has also approached this Court by filing a Criminal Revision Petition, to quash the case registered against him and therefore, that the Kerala Water Authority cannot continue to retain her client under suspension ad infinitum, as they are now presently doing. She, therefore, prays that Ext.P3 be set aside and her client be allowed to rejoin duty at the earliest.

¶23

WP(C).No.12834 OF 2020(D)

¶24

¶25

In response, the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Water Authority - Sri.Benjamin Paul, submitted that the competent Authority of his client had no other option but to suspend the petitioner because, they were instructed to do by the Government on account of the fact that he had been found accepting a bribe and had, in fact, been remanded to judicial custody for at least 15 days by the Criminal Court. He submitted that since it has been nearly one year after Ext.P3 had been issued, the Water Authority is in the process of reviewing the said action, after obtaining necessary concurrence from the Government and the Anti Corruption Bureau. He thus prayed that this Court may allow the Water Authority to do so and that this writ petition be ordered on such terms.

¶26

When I consider the afore submissions, it is indubitable that even the petitioner has no case that he was not remanded by the competent Criminal Court, based on the allegation made against him that he was found accepting bribe from a person by name, Sri.Shony P. Joseph. The question is not whether these allegations are true or otherwise, but if the Water Authority was, therefore, competent to suspend him. The applicable Rules and Regulations covering the field certainly make it incumbent upon

¶27

WP(C).No.12834 OF 2020(D)

¶28

¶29

the Water Authority to suspend the petitioner on the basis that he has been remanded to judicial custody over 15 days and therefore, I cannot find Ext.P3 to be in error.

¶30

That said, however, the surviving question is whether Ext.P3 can be allowed to continue ad infinitum since the petitioner has been kept under suspension for over 11 months as of now.

¶31

I am, therefore, of the firm view that the competent Committee/Authority of the respondent should review the suspension ordered against the petitioner through Ext.P3 and complete this process within the earliest point of time.

¶32

Resultantly, I order this writ petition and direct the competent Committee of the Water Authority - stated to have been constituted for the purpose of review of suspension of employees - to do so in the case of the petitioner also and complete such process after affording him an opportunity of being heard - either physically or through video conferencing - as expeditiously as is possible but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶33

SD/-

¶34

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

¶37

WP(C).No.12834 OF 2020(D)

¶38

¶39

APPENDIX

¶40

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶41

MANORAMA DAILY DATED 23/6/2002. EXHIBIT P1(C) THE COPY OF THE NEWS PUBLISHED IN THE HINDU DAILY DATED 15/2/2006. EXHIBIT P1(D) THE COPY OF THE NEW PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DATED 24/2/2006. EXHIBIT P1(E) THE COPY OF THE NEWS PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 18/11/2004. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R.NO.V.C.2/2020/ERK LODGED BY VIGILENCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, EASTERN RANGE. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 26/2/2020. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT DATED 30/5/2020.

Ajith K. Thankachan v. Chief Engineer (Hrd and General)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajith K. Thankachan v. Chief Engineer (Hrd and General)

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

Muhammed Haris K.M Vs State of Kerala

Hariharan K. Vs State of Kerala

Rajeev a.R., Vs State of Kerala

Dinesan M Vs the State of Kerala

Saji P.K. Vs State of Kerala

C.T.Betty Vs State of Kerala