IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 5815 of 2010(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.S.SASIKUMAR, MUNICIPAL ENGINEER (UNDER ORDER OF SUSPENSION), CHANGANACHERRY MUNICIPALITY, CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SMT.K.SUNITHA VINOD RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P. (C) No. 5815 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a Municipal Engineer under the Local Self Government Department. As per Ext.P1 order dated 18.9.2009, the petitioner was placed under suspension in contemplation of the disciplinary proceedings. It is challenging the said order of suspension, this writ petition has been filed. 2. The order of suspension is challenged on various grounds. It is contended that the allegations based on which he was placed under suspension are absolutely unsustainable and there is no truth in the allegations. In fact, the petitioner has earlier approached this court by filing WP(C)No. 27200/2009 and the same was disposed as per Ext.P4 judgment granting the petitioner liberty to file a petition under Rule 10(6) of the Kerala Civil Services(Classification, Control and Appeal)Rules, 1960 and with a direction the first respondent consider and pass orders, in case he files such a petition. Thereafter, he filed Ext.P5 petition dated 18.11.2009 before the first respondent. Even after its receipt no action was taken thereon within the time limit prescribed, it is submitted. It is further submitted that in the meanwhile as per Ext.P7 dated 5.2.2010, one M. Radha, who WPC.5815 of 2010 : 2 : was placed under suspension along with the petitioner in connection with the same alleged incident was reinstated in service. Even thereafter, Ext.P5 remains undisposed of. 3. The petitioner submits that it was against Smt.Radha that action was firstly initiated in connection with the alleged incident that led to their suspension and as per Ext.P7 she was reinstated keeping all disciplinary proceedings pending. In the said peculiar circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of as hereunder:- The petitioner will be at liberty to file a representation supplementing the contentions taken in Ext.P5 in the light of Ext.P7. The petitioner may do so within a period of one week from today. In case the first respondent did not consider Ext.P5 and passed orders thereon till date, then that shall not be done within 10 days from today so as to enable the petitioner to file representation for which liberty has been given. In case, such a representation is received that shall be considered along with Ext.P5 petition and orders shall be passed thereon within one month from today. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma