Disposed

Dr.Rency Simon v. the Secretary

Kerala HC28 Sept 2021WP(C)/20363/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the rejection of an appeal due to delay and lack of proper channel. The court directed the first respondent to accept a condonation application and the appeal within two months after submission by the petitioner. Writ disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file condonation application and appeal through proper channel within 10 days; First Respondent to decide on merits within 2 months.

Dr.Rency Simon Vs the Secretary — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 28^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 6TH ASWINA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 20363 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

DR.RENCY SIMON AGED 44 YEARS ASSISTANT DENTAL SURGEON, GOVERNMENT TALUK HOSPITAL, PIRAVOM, RESIDING AT UTHAMPURAYIL HOUSE, PALAKKATTUMALA POST, MARANGATTUPALLY.

¶8

BY ADV JOSEPH T.JOHN

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HEALTH, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶11

2 THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR HEALTH SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

3 THE PRINCIPAL GOVERNMENT DENTAL COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

GP V.VENUGOPAL

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C) NO. 20363 OF 2021

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The petitioner has approached this court, aggrieved by non consideration of Ext.P10 in its proper perspective. By Ext.P7, the application was found to be unsustainable on the premise that, the appeal was filed belatedly and that it was not filed through proper channel. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that by an inadvertent error, the delay condonation application was not submitted. The learned counsel contended that the respondent ought to have granted time to file an application for condonation, which was not done.

¶20

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents, I am inclined to set aside Ext.P11 at the threshold, holding that the authority ought to have granted some time to the petitioner to explain the delay. Having considered this, I am inclined to dispose of the writ petition itself, by directing the petitioner to submit an application for condonation of delay,

¶21

WP(C) NO. 20363 OF 2021 3

¶22

explaining the reason for delay in submitting Ext.P10 and also to move a copy of Ext.P10 through proper channel. It is made clear that the petitioner shall file appropriate application as mentioned above, and submit copy of Ext.P10 through proper channel within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On receipt of the application, the first respondent shall take up Ext.P10, and affidavit submitted and also the application submitted through proper channel and dispose it of on merits, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the affidavit and the application submitted through proper channel.

¶23

Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶26

R.AV

¶27

WP(C) NO. 20363 OF 2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT AGAINST THE PETITIONER ON 25.10.2011 FORWARDED THROUGH THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT THROUGH THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 29.10.2011.
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO TO THE PETITIONER ON 2.11.2011.
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 18.10.2012 TO THE DR.V.T.BEENA (PROFESSOR AND HEAD).
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 03.11.2011.
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES IN A PROCEEDINGS NUMBER EC4-16492/2012/DHS DATED 23.7.2012.
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED WRITTEN STATEMENT HAD FILED ON 18.10.2012
Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.5.2014 IN EC 4-16492/12/DHS.
Exhibit P9	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NUMBER AC.AIII/2/10965/2016 DATED 28.9.17.
Exhibit P10	TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 10.11.2020.
Exhibit P11	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.1.2021 NO.A3/2/2021.

Dr.Rency Simon v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Rency Simon v. the Secretary

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

K.K.Usha Vs State of Kerala

Sheema Sasidharan Vs State of Kerala

Reghunathan P. K. Vs the Director General, Cisf

P .S. Unnikrishnan Vs the Chakkittapara Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No.F 1675

Retnamma, Vs a.Alexander I.A.S

Musthaque.v Vs the Deputy Director of Education