IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2011 / 25TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 24239 of 2011(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JANARDHANAN.P., RETD.ASST.ENGINEER, P.H.SECTION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, RANNY. RESIDING AT: JYOTHIS, KURATTIKKADU, MANNAR - 689622. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.PRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALABHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHIEF ENGINEER (HRD&GI), KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALABHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SMT.AMBIKA DEVI, SC, KWA FOR R. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.24239/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS P1:-TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28.07.2008 P2:-TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10.12.2009 PREFERRED TO THE IST RESPONDENT. P3:-TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 24.02.2010 IN WPC NO.5997/10. P4:-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.03.2010 ISSUED BYTHE IST RESPONDENT. P5:-TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 18.01.2011 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE IST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J --------------------------------------------- W.P.(c)No.24239 of 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of October 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a retired Assistant Engineer of the Kerala Water Authority. He retired from service on 31.3.2010. 2. While in service, the petitioner was placed under suspension following a trap that was set by the vigilance squad under the Prevention of Corruption Act. A memo of charges was served on him. Though the petitioner submitted a statement of defence, no departmental enquiry was conducted thereafter. Therefore, the petitioner continued to be under suspension for a period of five years. According to the petitioner, after a long period of 14 years, without considering any of the contentions raised by him in the statement of defence, he was punished by imposing on him a punishment of censure. The period of suspension undergone by him was also directed to be treated as leave without allowances. Ext.P1 is the said order. Wpc no.24239/2011 2 3. As per Ext.P3 judgment, Ext.P2 was directed to be considered by the first respondent, before 25.3.2010. However, without considering Ext.P2, Ext.P4 has been issued stating that it has been decided not to consider the appeal of the petitioner. Ext.P4 is under challenge in this writ petition. 4. The standing counsel for the Kerala Water Authority submits that after imposing the punishment on the petitioner, an action taken report has also been forwarded to the Government. In view of the above, though the appeal submitted by the petitioner was examined, it was decided not to consider the same. 5. As per Ext.P3, the following direction has been issued by this Court. “Therefore, there will be a direction to the first respondent to consider Ext.P2 representation filed by the petitioner and pass orders thereon as expeditiously as possible, at any rate on or before 25.3.2010.” 6. In the face of the above direction, the first respondent was certainly bound to consider the petitioner's appeal. However, what is stated in Ext.P4 is Wpc no.24239/2011 3 as follows: “Your attention is invited to the reference cited. The appeal petition submitted by you is examined and it is decided not to consider the appeal at this stage since the action taken report was already informed to Government”. emphasis supplied 7. In the face of the positive direction issued by this Court to consider the petitioner's appeal Ext.P2, the first respondent was bound to obey the same. Therefore, his stand that it was not possible to consider the appeal, is to say least, highly improper. Ext.P4 is therefore set aside. 8. This writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to comply with the directions contained in Ext.P3 judgment and to pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's appeal, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. SD/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/ TRUE COPY P.S.TO JUDGE