IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2010 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 7967 of 2010(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.SURENDRAN, AGED 55 YEARS, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (AGRI) OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, AGRICULTURE, ALAPUZHA RESIDING AT TC 26/1768, SREE GANAPATH, UPPALAM ROAD, STATUE, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADVS. SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI SRI.R.ANIL SRI.ANIL K.MOHAMMED SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B. SRI.JOSEPH P.ALEX RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 7967 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as Assistant Executive Engineer under the Department of Agriculture. He was the third accused in C.C. No.53 of 2003 on the file of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, (Vigilance) Thiruvananthapuram charge sheeted under Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code. He was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.75,000/- with default sentence. Based entirely on the said conviction and sentence, as per Ext.P1, the petitioner was removed from service. Against the conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before this Court as Crl. Appeal No.2248 of 2008. Simultaneously, he filed W.P.(C) No.17789 of 2009 challenging Ext.P1 order. Based on the interim order passed in the said Writ Petition, the petitioner has been continuing in service. Subsequently, as per Ext.P2 judgment, the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner as per the judgment W.P.(C) NO. 7967/2010 2 in C.C. No.53 of 2003 was set aside and he was accordingly acquitted. Taking into account the said circumstances, as per Ext.P4 judgment, W.P. (C) No.17789 of 2009 was allowed and Ext.P1 order was set aside. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the setting aside of Ext.P1 order, no consequential action, as contemplated under Rule 28 of Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules (for short KS & SSR), has been taken by the respondent. It is contended by the petitioner that during the pendency of the proceedings, as explained above, two of his juniors, viz., P.M. Skaria and M.R. Anil, were promoted to the next higher post in 2006 itself. Feeling aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent to take steps in accordance with the relevant provisions under the KS& SSR, pursuant to ERxt.P4 judgment, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this Writ Petition. 2. Indisputably, Ext.P1 order, by which the petitioner was removed from service, passed entirely based on his conviction and sentence passed by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, (Vigilance) Thiruvananthapuram in C.C. No.53 of 2003, was set aside by this Court and in such circumstances, the respondent was bound to consider the claim of the petitioner for consequential benefits in accordance with the relevant provisions. In respect of a person who has been overlooked or W.P.(C) NO. 7967/2010 3 superseded on account of the pendency of disciplinary/criminal proceedings, the authorities are bound to consider the claim of such an employee in terms of the provisions of Rule 28 of Part II of the KS & SSR, subject to the outcome of the proceedings initiated against the employee. In the light of the facts obtained in this case, the respondent is bound to take such steps as contemplated in Rule 28 of Part II of the KS & SSR, especially in view of the contentions of the petitioner that two of his juniors were promoted to the next higher post of Executive Engineer in the year 2006. In the circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to take appropriate steps in terms of the provisions under Rule 28 of Part II of the KS & SSR expeditiously. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) sp/ W.P.(C) NO. 7967/2010 4 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C) NO. 7967/2010 JUDGMENT 16th March, 2010