IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 9787 of 2010(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ELSYKUTTY C.GEORGE, W/O.M.J.GEORGE, MELOOTTU PUTHEN VEEDU, KARAAKADU P.O ALAPPUZHA - 689 504. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. PATHANAMTHITTA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MUNICIPAL SECRETARY, PATHANAMTHITTA 3. THE MUNICIPAL SECRETARY, PATHANAMTHITTA MUNICIPALITY, PATHANAMTHITTA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, KUDUMBASREE MISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPALITIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. THE CHAIRMAN, PATHANAMTHITTA MUNICIPALITY, PATHANAMTHITTA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. 7. PETER KUNJUMMEN, COUNCILOR WARD NO.6, PATHANAMTHITTA MUNICIPALITY, PATHANAMTHITTA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. BY SRI.V.K.SUNIL, SC, PTA MUNICIPALITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 9787 of 2010 W ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 31 st day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is working as Health Supervisor under the 2 nd respondent. This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P3 order dated 09-03-2010 whereby the 3 rd respondent placed the petitioner under suspension. The contention of the petitioner, essentially, is that as per Section 15(6) of the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1994, the 3 rd respondent has no jurisdiction to place the petitioner under suspension. The Chair Person of the Municipality is the competent authority to place the employees of the Municipality under suspension. Therefore, according to the petitioner, on account of total lacking of jurisdiction on the part of the 3 rd respondent in issuing Ext.P3 order, it is liable to be set aside. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision of this Court in W.P(C) No.21559/2009 dated 03-08-2009. The learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent fairly concedes that the issue in this writ petition is squarely covered by the said judgment. In fact, on going through WPC.9787/2010 : 2 : the said judgment, I am of the opinion that Ext.P3 is liable to be set aside in the light of the aforesaid judgment. Accordingly, Ext.P3 is set aside. 2. Consequentially, the petitioner is liable to be re- instated in service forthwith. However, it is made clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of the authority competent to initiate action in accordance with law. Needless to say that since Ext.P3 order is ab initio void on account of lacking of jurisdiction, the petitioner shall be treated to have been in service without any break. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge