IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2009 / 12TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 11402 of 2009(U) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ L.KAMALAMMA, KUNNATHUNVEEDU, VADAKKUMBHAGOM, CHAVARA SOUTH P.O. BY ADVS. MR.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN, MR.T.S.HARIKUMAR, MR.K.JAGADEESH. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, CHAVARA. R1 & R2 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P.(C) No. 11402 of 2009 U =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard Sri. T.S. Harikumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Anu Sivaraman, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is an Anganwady Worker. On allegations of misconduct, she was placed under suspension by Ext.P1 order dated 20-10- 2008 passed by the second respondent Child Development Project Officer, Chavara. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges Ext.P1 order of suspension and seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate her in service. She has also a grievance that she has not been paid subsistence allowance. 3. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit justifying the action taken by them. The pleadings disclose that nearly eight months have passed after the petitioner was suspended from service. Paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent discloses that the petitioner was offered an opportunity to tender apology in order to enable the respondents to re-engage her. The learned counsel for the petitioner W.P.(C) No. 11402/09 2 submits that the petitioner did not avail that opportunity, in view of the pendency of this writ petition. In my opinion, in view of the offer made by the respondents in Exts.R2(d) series letters dated 28-2-2009, 15-4-2009 and 18-5-2009, the petitioner should have availed the said opportunity in order to enable the respondents to put an end to the controversy. Since eight months have passed after the petitioner was placed under suspension, the respondents are also bound to consider whether the order of suspension requires to be continued. I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with the direction that in the event of the petitioner filing an appropriate representation tendering her apology, the respondents shall act on the same and take an appropriate decision. This shall be done within two weeks from the date on which the petitioner tenders apology as directed above. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. mn.