IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST AUGUST 2011 / 9TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 22803 of 2011(A) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- P.MOHANAN, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, NEELIYATTIL HOUSE, P.O.NAMBAZHIKKADU, KANDANNISSERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT (UNDER SUSPENSION), THE TRICHUR CO-OPERATIVE SPINNING MILLS LTD., VAZHANI, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.B.PRAJITH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE TRICHUR CO-OPERATIVE SPINNING MILLS LTD., VAZHANI, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN-680 589. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, THE TRICHUR CO-OPERATIVE SPINNING MILLS LTD., VAZHANI, THRISSUR. PIN-680 589. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO.22803/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER DATED 02/07/2011. P2: COPY OF THE STANDING ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.22803 of 2011-A. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 31st August, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner, while working as Executive Assistant under the first respondent Spinning Mill, was placed under suspension as per Ext.P1 dated 2.7.2011. Evidently, thereafter, Ext.P3 charge memo was issued to him on 3.8.2011. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the same was received by the petitioner only on 19.8.2011. This writ petition has been filed mainly with a prayer to quash Ext.P1 order of suspension and seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to culminate the enquiry proceedings within a stipulated time. The further prayer for a declaration that Ext.P1 order of suspension is against Ext.P2 standing orders. Evidently, the grievance of the petitioner is against the action of the 2nd respondent in placing him under suspension. I am of the view that such grievances against Ext.P1 have to be raised WP(C).No.22803/2011-A. 2 before the Director Board of the 1st respondent. In that view of the matter this writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to move the Director Board of the 1st respondent raising grievances against Ext.P1 order of suspension . He may do so within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In case the petitioner prefers such a petition before the Director Board of the 1st respondent raising his claims and grievances against Ext.P1, the Board shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon expeditiously, at any rate, within six weeks from the date of receipt of such petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a direction may also be issued to the respondents to complete the disciplinary proceedings within a time limit. Even according to the petitioner, Ext.P3 memo of charges was served to the petitioner only on 19.8.2011. Therefore, at this point of time, it will be inappropriate for this Court to fix any time limit to complete the disciplinary proceedings. However, in case of inordinate delay in the matter of WP(C).No.22803/2011-A. 3 completion of the disciplinary proceedings, it will be open to the petitioner to resort to appropriate proceedings for redressing such grievances. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, (Judge) Kvs/-