IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2010 / 11TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 26732 of 2010(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER : --------------- AJITH GOPI, PROJECT ENGINEER (UNDER SUSPENSION), AGENCY FOR NON-CONVENTIONAL ENERGY AND RURAL TECHNOLOGY, (ANERT), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT SOORYA GAYATHRI, OJRA-118, ARAMADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENTS : --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF POWER, KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, AGENCY FOR NON-CONVENTIONAL ENERGY AND RURAL TECHNOLOGY, (ANERT), THYCAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014. 3. AGENCY FOR NON-CONVENTIONAL ENERGY AND RURAL TECHNOLOGY, (ANERT), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.ARAVINDA KUMAR BABU T.K. R2 & R3 BY SRI.V.G.ARUN & SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 26732 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is working as a Project Engineer under the 3rd respondent. The petitioner was selected for participation in the international training programme on Wind Power Development and Use at Sweden and China. All formalities were completed by the petitioner to attend the programme, except sanction from the Government, for which papers have been forwarded to the Government much before the commencement of the training programme. But no orders were passed by the Government on the same. Anticipating sanction, in so far as the similar sanction has already been issued to others, the petitioner proceeded to attend the proramme. Thereafter on the allegation that the petitioner attended the training programme unauthorisedly absenting himself without leave and without obtaining sanction from the Government, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and he was suspended from service. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging his suspension and seeking the following reliefs:- “i) issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate W.P.(C).No. 26732 of 2010 2 writ, order or direction quashing Exhibit P7 and P8. ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding 2nd respondent to reinstate petitioner in service. iii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding 2nd respondent to finalise the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner pursuant to Exhibit P7 and P8 within a time limit to be specified by this Hon'ble Court. iv) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents to disburse the arrears of salary due to the petitioner and to grant subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. v) to issue any other writ or direction appropriate in the circumstances of this case which this Hon'ble Court deems just and necessary.” 2. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the counsel appearing for the 2nd and 3rd respondents. Having heard both sides I am of the opinion that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner should be completed within a time frame and the petitioner should be paid subsistence allowance in the meanwhile. Therefore this writ petition is disposed with following directions:- The 1st respondent shall complete the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner initiated by Exts.P7 and P8, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 5 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the disciplinary proceedings cannot be completed by that time the petitioner shall W.P.(C).No. 26732 of 2010 3 be reinstated in service without prejudice to the right of the first respondent to continue the disciplinary proceedings. The 2nd respondent shall see that the subsistence allowance due to the petitioner is paid to the petitioner every month. Arrears already accrued shall be paid within two weeks. However in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 on the question as to whether the petitioner is a regular employee of the 3rd respondent is pending consideration by this Court in another writ petition, the payment of subsistence allowance shall not be a bar for the respondents 2 and 3 in contending that the petitioner is not a regular employee of the 3rd respondent, I make it clear that payment of subsistence allowance to the petitioner as per the above direction will not stand in the way of respondents 2 and 3 contesting the said writ petition on any grounds available to them in accordance with law. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE mns W.P.(C).No. 26732 of 2010 4