IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2011 / 28TH ASWINA 1933 RP.No. 719 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WA.1642/2010 Dated 27/06/2011 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT ------------------------------- M.K.JAYALAKSHMI,W/O.UMESH,AGED 52, 7/172,VAZHETH LANE,EMILIE,KALPETTA, NOW RESIDING AT 9/638,BEHIND BRAHMAKUMARIS, HARIDHAGIRI ROAD, KALPETTA. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM VAKKANAL, S ENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.E.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): / RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY KALPETTA MUNICIPALITY,KALPETTA PIN 673 121. 2. THE SECRETARY LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001. 3. THE SECRETARY TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 6 95 001. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, MR.GEORGE MECHERIL SRI.JOE JOSEPH KOCHIKUNNEL, SC FOR R1 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.P.NO.719/2011 APPENDIX REVIEW PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ANNEXURE-A1 : COPY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DATED 02/09/2008 MADE BEFORE THE ENQUIRY OFFICER HIMSELF IN THE ARGUMENT NOTE. ANNEXURE-A2 : COPY OF LETTER FROM THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE-A3 : COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO.1642/2010. ANNEXURE-A4 : COPY OF LETTER DATED 23/09/2011. ANNEXURE-A4(a) : COPY OF LETTER DATED 19/09/2011. ANNEXURE-A4(b) : COPY OF REPLY GIVEN TO THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE-A4(c) : COPY OF REPLY GIVEN TO THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE-A5 : COPY OF REPLY UNDER RTI ACT. ANNEXURE-A5(a) : COPY OF ORDER REINSTATING SHRI.K.SANTHOSH. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Ag.CJ. & P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. .................................................................... R.P.No.719 of 2011 in W.A. No.1642 of 2010 .................................................................... Dated this the 20th day of October, 2011. O R D E R Ramachandran Nair, Ag.CJ. Heard learned counsel for the review petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent. We have also gone through the letter written by the counsel who had appeared for the review petitioner in the Writ Appeal. The learned counsel has conceded his lapses in presenting the matter of the review petitioner both before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Department and before this Court in the original side and in the Writ Appeal. 2. The appellant was in service of the 1st respondent for 17 years as Full Time Sweeper. She is without any means or income and has a retarded child. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the review petitioner contended that the punishment is disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. We find force in this contention because R.P.No.719/2011 in W.A.No.1642/2010 2 disciplinary proceedings is initiated against the review petitioner for insubordination. We have also noticed that failure of the appellant is only to shift place of work from the market, where she was employed as Sweeper, to general cleaning in the municipal area. We feel considering the gravity of the insubordination practised by the appellant, the punishment of removal from service that too of a lady, who has served for 17 years is excessive and arbitrary. Accordingly, we allow the review petition by recalling our judgment in the Writ Appeal and allow the same with direction to the 1st respondent to reinstate the appellant in service limiting the punishment only by denying the wages for the period she was kept under suspension. However, whatever is the subsistence allowance paid need not be recovered from the appellant. Past services should be reckoned for all benefits, except the period of suspension. This Review Petition is allowed as above. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) R.P.No.719/2011 in W.A.No.1642/2010 3 jg