IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2011 / 31ST ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 18964 of 2011(U) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- P.CHANDRAN, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.LATE BALAKRISHNAN, AMBALAKANDI HOUSE, KARAKUNNAM P.O., SECRETARY (UNDER SUSPENSION), MARAKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 123. BY ADVS. SRI.K.I.ABDUL RASHEED, SRI.K.A.SHAMSUDEEN, SMT. BHAMA G.NAIR, SRI.MEETHIAN KUNJU.V.K. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. L.G.SURESH BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.18964/2011 U APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE HANDBOOK GIVEN TO THE ELECTORAL REGISTRATION OFFICER. P2: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 30/11/2010 SUBMITTED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DTD. 20/05/2010 IN WP(C) NO.13998/2010. P4: COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DTD. 21/01/2011. P5: COPY OF PROCEEDINGS GO(RT) NO.1061/11/LSGD DTD. 25/04/2011. P6: COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 18/07/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.18964 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner while working as a Secretary at Marakkara Grama Panchayat was placed under suspension as per Ext.P5. Evidently, Ext.P5 is an order passed by invoking the power under Rule 10(1) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules(for short the 'Rules'). In view of the order I propose to pass in this writ petition, I do not think it necessary to deal with the contentions raised in this writ petition in detail. As against the order of suspension passed by invoking the power under Rule 10(1) of the Rules an aggrieved person can prefer either a petition under Rule 10(6) or an appeal under Rule 22 of the Rules. In this case, evidently, Ext.P5 order was passed by the Government and therefore, there is no scope for filing an appeal against Ext.P5 under Rule 22 of the Rules. However, it will be open to the petitioner to resort to the remedy available under Rule 10(6) and in fact, the petitioner did avail the said remedy after the institution of this writ petition. Ext.P6 is the petition filed WPC.No.18964/2011 : 2 : under Rule 10(6) of the KCS(CC&A)Rules, requesting to review the order in Ext.P5. Since the petitioner has already filed Ext.P6 and it is pending before the first respondent, without making any observation as to the merits of the contentions raised in this writ petition as also in Ext.P6, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6, expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge