IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2009 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 13994 of 2009(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SAJI.S, PEON, GOVERNMENT VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MURINJAKAL P.O., KOODAL-689693 (UNDER SUSPENSION). BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR SRI.V.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSIONER FOR GOVERNMENT EXAMINATIONS,POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY G.P. SHRI A.J. VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.13994 of 2009-T - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner herein is working as a Peon in the Government Vocational Higher Secondary School, Murinjakal P.O., Koodal. It appears that there was an inspection in the school by the second respondent in connection with the SSLC Examination, March 2009. The second respondent noted in the inspection book that the petitioner did not attend night duty and accordingly he was suspended from service. The petitioner was issued with Ext.P3 to which he submitted Ext.P4 explanation. The Principal also submitted Ext.P5 explanation. A reading of Ext.P5 will show that the petitioner was not assigned any duty during night and hence there is no question of any refusal to take night duty. Ext.P6 is the order subsequently issued, by which he was again suspended. Presently, he has filed Ext.P7 appeal before the Government under Rule 22 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal Rules), challenging the order of suspension. 2. Ext.P7 is dated 15.5.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is targeted without any fault on his part and the wpc 13994/2009 2 relevant rules regarding the power of the authority to suspend an employee, have not been borne in mind while passing the order. It is pointed out that there are no grounds subsisting which required the petitioner to be placed under suspension. Therefore, it is submitted that the continued suspension of the petitioner is without any justification and unless orders are passed to dispose of the appeal within a time limit, the petitioner will be put to real hardship. 3. Heard learned Govt. Pleader also. 4. There will be a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P7 on its merits after affording an opportunity for personal hearing to the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/