IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2011 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1932 RP.No. 790 of 2010(D) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.17273/2009 Dated 28/06/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER IN WPC: --------------------------------------------------------------------- D.PRISEKUTTY, S/O.DANELI, AGED 53 YEARS, TELECOM MECHANIC, BSNL PERUMBALAM, RESIDING AT EDAPPURAYIL HOUSE, KARRAKKAD P.O., CHENGANNUR, KERALA. BY ADV. SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN WPC: ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, BSNL, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, BSNL, TRIVANDRUM. 3. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM (DET), BSNL, CHENGANNUR. 4. DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, TELECOM (DET), BSNL, CHENGANNUR. R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP,SC, BSNL THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & S.S.Satheesachandran, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.790 of 2010 in W.P.(C).17273 of 2009-S = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 8th day of March, 2011. Order Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. The last sentence in Ext.P11 in the writ petition is only a direction to the establishment to reinstate the employee in service forthwith, with all service benefits. In Ext.P12 judgment, the Division Bench gave the establishment the liberty to impose a proportionate minor penalty. In all other respects, Ext.P11 judgment of the learned single Judge was sustained. In our view, that may not ipso facto mean that the establishment could be forced in terms of Exts.P11 and P12 to treat the period of suspension in a particular manner. The imposition of punishment is the point at which the disciplinary proceedings will end. Therefore, subject to the restrictions in Ext.P12, the question as to how the period of suspension has to be treated, would be considered only after the establishment takes a further RP790/10 -: 2 :- decision after Ext.P12. The matter again went up to the Central Administrative Tribunal after the minor penalty was imposed. That led to the judgment sought to be reviewed being issued by this Court when the petitioner challenged the decision of the CAT rendered in T.A.No.77 of 2008. We said that the establishment was to pass revised orders and release service benefits in a time bound manner. The establishment is stated to have released certain amounts. We are not shown any order which the establishment has passed as revised order in terms of the last paragraph of the judgment sought to be reviewed. If the petitioner has any further grievance regarding the manner in which the period of suspension has been treated by trimming the entitlement for allowances only to be the subsistence allowance already paid, it may be open to him to take that matter before the CAT. Even if he has a complaint regarding the manner in which the period till compulsory retirement is treated, that again may give rise to a justiciable cause to be taken up RP790/10 -: 3 :- before the CAT. It is not one which is maintainable as an error apparent on the face of the judgment sought to be reviewed. In this view of the matter, we dismiss this review petition with liberty to the petitioner to move the CAT against any decision issued by the establishment following the judgment sought to be reviewed. We further direct the establishment to issue to the petitioner a copy of any revised decision issued in terms of the last paragraph of the judgment sought to be reviewed. We further clarify that we have not expressed anything on the merits, either in law or on facts, regarding the contents of any such order and all issues are left open for consideration in appropriate jurisdictions. Sd/- Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. Sd/- S.S.Satheesachandran, Judge. Sha/1003 -true copy- P.S.to Judge.