IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 20TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1270 of 2011(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A. JAYAKUMARAN NAIR, UPPER DIVISION CLERK (HIGHER GRADE), (NOW UNDER SUSPENSION), PAREEKSHA BHAVAN, POOJAPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 012. BY ADV. SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL SRI.P.R.PRATEESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR, STATE COUNCIL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND TRAINING (SCERT), POOJAPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 6095 012. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIURUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001 GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.SANDESH RAJA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 1270 of 2011 ================== Dated this the 9th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was suspended from service along with others for certain allegations of misconduct, by Ext.P1 order. The petitioner challenges the suspension. One of the contentions raised by the petitioner is that as is evident from Ext.P5 order, a co-delinquent, who was suspended along with the petitioner by Ext.P1 order itself, has been reinstated in service as early as on 26.9.2008. As such, there is no justification in continuing the petitioner's suspension is the contention raised. 2. The learned Government Pleader, while admitting that the co-delinquent has been reinstated in service as per Ext.P5, would contend that that was done on the basis of a representation filed by the co-delinquent before the Government and the petitioner never approached the Government for revocation of the suspension. The counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner had filed Ext.P3 before the Director of Public Instructions and Ext.P5 was passed by the DPI. The Government Pleader submits that the Director of Public Instructions is not the authority to revoke the suspension and as is evident from Ext.P5, the Director of Public Instructions revoked the suspension of the co-delinquent as per a direction issued by the w.p.c.1270/11 2 Government. 3. Having heard both sides, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions: The 2nd respondent shall forward Ext.P3 to the 3rd respondent within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Thereupon, the 3rd respondent shall consider and pass orders on the same within another two weeks and while doing so, the 3rd respondent shall consider as to whether the person in Ext.P5 is similarly placed like the petitioner and if it is so, the petitioner shall also be reinstated. Needless to say, such reinstatement would be subject to further proceedings in the disciplinary proceedings, if the respondents intend to continue the disciplinary proceedings. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge