IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 7269 of 2006(M) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- T.S.MOHANAN PILLAI, KANNAMBALAM, PERUMAN P.O., PERINADU, KOLLAM. BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE (PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SMT.SREELEKHA PUTHALATH SRI.A.R.DILEEP RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV.SRI.C.VIJAYAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/11/2011, THE COURT ON 16/11/2011 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: STU WP(C).No. 7269 of 2006(M) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 : COPY OF ORDER OF SUSPENSION NO.ROC.1313/89/EST. DTD 15/05/1989. P2 : COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES VIDE NO.R.O.C.NO. 12/89/EC DTD 06/10/1989 AND STATEMENT OF ALLEGATION OF EVEN NUMBER. P2(a) : COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES VIDE NO.R.O.C.NO.12/89/EC DTD 06/10/1989 AND STATEMENT OF ALLEGATION OF EVEN NUMBER. P3 : COPY OF EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. P4 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO.R.O.C.1313/89/EST DTD 10/04/1990 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P5 : COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. P6 : A TYPE WRITTEN COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE NO.RCC 1313/89/EST. DTD 10/09/1991. P7 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD 04/10/1991. P8 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD 02/03/1995. P9 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD 13/09/2000. P10 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED IN FEBRUARY 2005. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE. STU S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 7269 of 2006 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 16th day of November, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner was an employee of the 1st respondent Travancore Devaswom Board. While working as Sub Group Officer Grade I, the petitioner was served with Ext.P1 order of suspension pending enquiry into certain allegations of misconduct involving misappropriation of money. Ext.P2 memo of charges was issued along with Ext.P2(a) statement of allegation. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the charge memo and by Ext.P4 order dated 10.4.1990, the petitioner was reinstated in service pending enquiry. Subsequently, the petitioner was served with Ext.P5 show cause notice as to why the petitioner should be imposed with the punishment of removal from service on the basis of the finding of guilt in the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer who conducted the enquiry. After considering the petitioner's explanation, by Ext.P6 order dated 10.9.1991, the punishment of removal from service was confirmed. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “i issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for the records leading to Ext.P6 and quash the same; ii. issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits; iii. in the alternative issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, directing the respondents to quantify the amounts including unpaid salary and amount due from Devaswom Provident Fund to the petitioner and disburse the same within such time as may be prescribed by this Honourable Court.” 2. When it was pointed out to the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has challenged Ext.P6 order dated 10.9.1991 only on 17.2.2006 without properly explaining the delay, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner confines his relief to prayer no. (iii). 3. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents . 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. Apparently, the salary for the period from May, 1991 to August, 1991 was denied to the petitioner since in Ext.P6 order, the petitioner was removed from service with effect from the date when he was placed under suspension. I am of opinion that insofar as the petitioner has been reinstated and he worked during the said period, the petitioner is entitled to the salary for the said period. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to see that the salary due to the petitioner for the period from May 1991 to August 1991 is paid to him as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If, based on the salary for the said period the petitioner is entitled to any other service benefits, the same shall also be paid within the said period. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/