IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2009 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 1428 of 2009(T) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. ANSAR HUSSAIN, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED RAWTHER, WORKING AS TRADE INSTRUCTOR, SUB CENTRE, KOLLAM 2. SHINE S., AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. SOMAN K., WORKING AS SCREEN PRINTER, SUB CENTRE, KOLLAM. BY ADVS.MR.C.V.MANUVILSAN MR.SYAM J SAM SMT.K.VIDYA MR.P.A.KUNJUMON RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE AUDIO VISUAL AND REPROGRAPHIC CENTRE, HEAD OFFICE COMPLEX, VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE VICE CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE SUDIO VISUAL AND REPROGRAPHIC CENTRE, THE OFFICE OF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. MR.K.ANAND (A.201) FOR R1 SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 1428 of 2009-T - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of March, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioners have approached this court aggrieved by the order of suspension, Ext.P2. The petitioners are working as Trade instructor and Screen Printer at the Sub Centre, Kollam. As per Ext.P2, they were placed under suspension on the ground that the Assistant Training Officer, Shri N.K. Suresh was prevented from performing his official duties and he was abused and threatened by the petitioners. The petitioners have denied the allegations and the whole staff therein have protested it by by filing Ext.P3 before the Government. 2. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit explaining the circumstances leading to the order of suspension. It is pointed out that after receipt of a written statement from Shri N.K. Suresh, two seniormost officers along with another personnel from the accounts section were deputed to have a preliminary investigation and after investigation, they submitted a report wherein the allegations against them were found primafacie correct. It is pointed out that the petitioners were issued with a memo of charges dated 29.12.2008. wpc 1428/2009 2 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners who submitted that since the order of suspension is issued by the Managing Director, there is no other remedy for them to challenge the same. It is submitted in the counter affidavit that an appeal will lie from an order of the Managing Director, to the Governing Body. Learned counsel for the petitioners points out that appeal will lie only if a penalty is imposed. 4. Be that as it may, as the disciplinary proceedings have already started, a direction can be issued to complete the same within a reasonable time. 5. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to complete the disciplinary action initiated against the petitioners, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners may be granted the subsistence allowance due as per the rules and the learned Standing Counsel submitted that the same will be disbursed in accordance with the rules, without any delay. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) wpc 1428/2009 3 kav/