IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 25TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 8669 of 2009(C) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- S.MOHANKUMAR SUMANAM, SECTION OFFICER, INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT IN GOVERNMENT, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT IN GOVERNMENT, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. 2. DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT IN GOVERNMENT VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADDL. R3 IS IMPLEADED. 3. SRI.C.KRISHNAN NAIR, SECTION OFFICER, INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT IN GOVERNMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADDL. R3 IS IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DT. 29.5.09 IN IA. 5847/09. R1 & R2 BY ADV.MR.R.S.KALKURA,SC R3 BY MR.KRB.KAIMAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE R3 BY ADV.MR.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.8669/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.660/A1/2008/IMG DTD. 26.7.08 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P2:- COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGE NO.4065/SECY./IMG/2008 DTD. 26.7.08 ALONG WITH THE STATEMENT OF ALLEGATION ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. P3:- COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DTD. 26.11.08 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO EXT.P2 MEMO OF CHARGE. P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.1/09/IMG DTD. 1.1.09 OF THE IST RESPONDENT. P5:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.334/A1/2009/IMG DTD. 3.3.09 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P6:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.358/A1/2009/IMG DTD. 13.3.09 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P7:- COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.15/06/P&ARD DTD. 25.9.06. P8:- COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.1015/D2/92/P&ARD DTD. 15.1.92. P9:- COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT IN GOVERNMENT, FRAMED BY THE RESPONDENTS. P10:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.358/A1/04/IMG DTD. 20.8.04. P11:- COPY OF THE ORRICE ORDER NO.6715/A1/05/IMG DTD. 30.8.05. P12:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.1169/05/IMG DTD. 20.12.05. P13:- COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.5328/RULES.1/99/P&ARD DTD. 3.6.99. P14:- COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO.350/08/FIN. DTD. 6.8.08. P15:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.436/A1/2009/IMG DTD. 24.4.09 OF THE DIRECTOR. P16:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.6075/A1/08/IMG DTD. 6.2.09 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. P17:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 21.2.09 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER. P18:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.6075/A1/08 /IMG DTD. 28.2.09 FROM THE ENQUIRY OFFICER. P19:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 11.3.09 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).8669/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 16th day of September, 2009 JUDGMENT While working as Section Officer in the Institute of Management in Government, petitioner was suspended from service as per Ext.P1 order. Ext.P2 memo of charges was also issued and the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 explanation. An enquiry as contemplated under Rule 15 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules is underway. In the meanwhile, on an application made by the petitioner, his suspension was revoked, as evidenced by Ext.P6 order. But on reinstatement, petitioner has been ordered to be posted as Public Relations Officer in Headquarters, Thiruvananthapuram, on working arrangement. The said post has been temporarily shifted to IMG, Regional Centre, Kochi. Petitioner challenges Ext.P6 to the extent to which he is directed to be posted as a PRO on reinstatement. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent and also by the 3rd respondent. 3rd respondent who is now working as Section Officer on a provisional basis has been W.P.(C).8669/09 2 impleaded on the premise that it is at the instance of the 3rd respondent, that the petitioner has been posted as PRO. 3. I heard Mr.Pirappancode Sudheer, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.R.S.Kalkura, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and Mr.K.R.B.Kaimal, learned senior counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. 4. On revocation of suspension and reinstatement, an employee should normally be reinstated in the same post. In the instant case, petitioner's suspension has been decided to be revoked by the Management. He should therefore, have been reinstated as Section Officer. But the Management justifies the posting of the petitioner as PRO on the ground that the Suspension Review Committee had decided that it would not be desirable to have the petitioner within Thiruvananthapuram District itself pending finalisation of the disciplinary proceedings. It is contended that if therefore, the petitioner is to be reinstated, after revocation of his suspension, he can only be accommodated against a post of PRO. It is also pointed out that as is evidenced by Ext.R1(e), the petitioner's pay and allowances which he was receiving W.P.(C).8669/09 3 prior to suspension has been directed to be protected in its entirety. Petitioner cannot therefore, have a grievance as regards posting as PRO. 5. I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that protection of pay and other benefits, which the petitioner was receiving prior to his suspension, on reinstatement alone will not suffice. The grievance of the petitioner that on reinstatement after revocation of suspension, he is entitled to be reinstated to the post which he was occupying at the time of his suspension, cannot be alleviated merely by protecting the pay. It is evident from Ext.P11 that the post of PRO is lower in hierarchy to that of a Section Officer. If the 2nd respondent feels that the petitioner's suspension is liable to be revoked, then the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in the same post. It is stated that there are two posts of Section Officers in Ernakulam and Kozhikode and if the petitioner cannot be accommodated in Thiruvananthapuram, then some other person working in Ernakulam or Kozhikode would be affected, and may have to be posted in Thiruvananthapuram to accommodate the petitioner as an SO in Ernakulam or W.P.(C).8669/09 4 Kozhikode, as the case may be. It may be noted herein that the petitioner has no objection to being posted either in Ernakulam or in Kozhikode, as an SO. 6. I am of the view that the matter requires reconsideration by the 2nd respondent. If the authority competent is convinced that the petitioner's suspension is liable to be revoked, then, the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in the post of SO itself. Place of posting is a matter that will have to be left to the discretion of the 2nd respondent. 7. Ext.P6 is therefore, set aside in the light of what is stated above. 2nd respondent shall pass fresh orders in the matter of revocation of the suspension of the petitioner and his posting, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs