IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 32500 of 2009(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- B.VIKRAMAN NAIR, S/O.N.BHA SKARA PILLAI, SECURITY GUARD, MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT VP 330, THRIVENI, KOOTTAYANIMOODU, VELLANADU P.O. BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVT., HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, (SUPERINTENDENT, MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM). 3. THE SECRETARY (SUPERINTENDENT, MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. MRS.ANU SIVARAMAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------ WP(C) No.32500 of 2009 (F) -------------------------- Dated, this the 30th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Ext.P1 shows that the petitioner was appointed as an Operation Theatre Assistant on daily wages. Subsequently, by Ext.P3, he was appointed as a Security Guard again on same terms and conditions. Ext.P4 is a complaint made by the 3rd respondent against the petitioner. An enquiry committee was appointed to enquire into the allegations raised in Ext.P4. The enquiry committee submitted Ext.P6 report on 13/10/2008 recommending action against the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that no decision has been taken on Ext.P6 and that despite Exts.P9 & P10 representations he is not reinstated in service or allowed to work. 2. The case was adjourned with a direction to the learned Government Pleader to obtain instructions. On instructions, it is submitted that the Committee considered Ext.P6 enquiry report and that in the light of the findings in the report, it was concluded that it is undesirable to allow the petitioner to continue in service. It is stated that therefore the name of the petitioner has been removed from the rolls. It is stated that being a daily waged employee, it was WP(C) No.32500/2009 -2- not necessary to follow the procedures that are applicable in respect of regular employees. 3. Therefore, evidently, the Committee of the Society, which engaged the petitioner, has resolved not to allow the petitioner to continue in service, which was on daily wages. His name also has been removed from the rolls. If that be so, there is no question of directing reinstatement in service. 4. However, in view of the complaint of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the proceedings, resulting in his removal from the rolls have not been communicated to him, I direct the 2nd respondent Society to communicate the decision taken by it on Ext.P6 report. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 2nd respondent for compliance. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg