IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2010 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 22713 of 2009(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.S.HONEY,ASSISTANT GRADE-II,LATEX CENTRIFUGING FACTORY OF THE STATE FARMING CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD,CHITHELVETY. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE FARMING CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD,FARM HOUSE,P.B.NO.13,VETTITHITTA.P.O,PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,THE STATE FARMING CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD,FARM HOUSE,P.B.NO.13, VETTITHITTA.P.O,PUNALUR,KOLLAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.AJITH KRISHNAN,SC,STATE FARMING COR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: Ext.P1: True copy of order No. SFCK/PER/TSH/1293 dated 03.8.09 issued by the 2nd respondent. Ext.P2: True copy of the representation filed by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent dated 5.9.2009. Ext.P3: True copy of the oder No. SFCK/PER/A.P. 3975 dated 30.3.2009. Ext.P4: True copy of the representation filed by the petitioner dated 13.12.2009. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 22713 OF 2009 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is an Assistant Grade-II in the Latex Centrifuging Factory of the State Farming Corporation of Kerala Ltd. Based on an allegation that the petitioner has incorrectly weighed a lorry laden with materials from the factory on its way out, he was placed under suspension as per order dated 23.5.2008. In fact, along with the petitioner, the Assistant Manager one Mr.Purushothaman, attached to the said office at the relevant point of time was also placed under suspension in connection with the very same incident. Later, the petitioner was reinstated in service as per Ext.P1 order dated 3.8.2009 and at the same time, he was transferred to Mullumala Estate. In the meanwhile, the Assistant Manager who was placed under suspension along with the petitioner was reinstated into service and posted to Chithelvetty. It is evident from Ext.P3 that in the enquiry it was found that the charges leveled against him were not proved. Therefore, in his case, the period spent by him under suspension was ordered to be treated as duty for all purposes. In the circumstances, the petitioner submitted Exts.P2 and P4 representations before the second W.P.(C) NO.22713/2009 2 respondent seeking transfer to the Head Office at Punalur and also to treat the period spent by him under suspension as duty, as has been done in the case of the Assistant Manager Sri.Purushothaman. 2. Ext.P1 order would reveal that the petitioner was reinstated in service with certain conditions. One of the conditions sounds strange. It reads thus: The board after examining the contents of the enquiry report in detail and the finding in the enquiry has resolved as per reference (4) to initiate a fresh enquiry on the issue of allegations raised against him and reinstate him into service until the allegations against him are proved or till further directions of the Board. 3. As per Ext.P1, the enquiry officer who conducted the enquiry initially found that the charges leveled against the petitioner were not proved. Of course, it is well within the powers of the respondents to conduct fresh enquiry. But, at the same time, the condition 'to initiate fresh enquiry until the allegations against him are proved' as extracted above, cannot be sustained. Prescribing such a condition in any order by any authority can be styled only as arbitrary and illegal and being unconscionable and opposed to public interest, the same cannot be sustained even for a moment and, therefore, the said condition is only to be deleted. It is ordered accordingly. It is made clear that it will not stand in the way of the respondents conducting a fresh enquiry as ordered as per W.P.(C) NO.22713/2009 3 Ext.P1. 4. In the matter of transfer and also for treating the period spent under suspension as duty, the petitioner has submitted Exts.P2 and P4 representations before the second respondent. It is stated in Ext.P2 that the petitioner's younger sister is a spinster and orthopaedically handicapped with permanent partial disability which is assessed as 60%. It is also submitted that his aged mother is not in a position to give proper care and to attend to the needs of the said physically handicapped sister. In the circumstances, the petitioner prays that the respondents may be directed to consider his request for transfer with compassion. The plight of the petitioner definitely requires consideration with compassion. The request of the petitioner for treating the period spent under suspension as duty in the light of Ext.P3 also requires consideration by the respondents. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider Exts.P2 and P4 representations expeditiously, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.22713/2009 4 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C). NO.22713/2010 JUDGMENT 4th March, 2010