IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 27TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 4848 of 2010(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.RAJENDRAN, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BANASURA SAGAR PROJECT, SUB DIVISION NO.1, PADINJARATHARA,WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES (MP) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, WATER RESOURCES (GW) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P. NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 4848 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is an Assistant Executive Engineer under the Water Resources Department. He was placed under suspension as per Ext.P6 order dated 21.11.2008 in contemplation of disciplinary action. The said disciplinary action has now been initiated against him as per Ext.P11 memo of charges dated 10.07.2009. The contention of the petitioner is that though the Assistant Engineer and third grade overseer who were placed under suspension in connection with the same incident that led to the suspension of the petitioner were re-instated into service, no action has so far been taken to review the order of suspension of the petitioner despite the receipt of Ext.P10. 2. Ext.P10 is the review petition filed by the petitioner as early as on 30.5.2009. Even in the absence of a review petition, going by para 17 of the Manual for Disciplinary proceedings, the respondents are bound to review the order of suspension periodically on expiry of six months. Therefore, there is no justification for not considering Ext.P10 especially when it was filed on 30.5.2009. The contention of the petitioner is that the W.P.(C) NO.4848 of 2010 2 persons ( Assistant Engineer and third grade overseer ) who were placed under suspension are already reinstated into service is also a matter which is to be considered by the respondents while reviewing Ext.P6 order of suspension. In the circumstances, there shall be a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P10 expeditiously, at any rate within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.4848 of 2010 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C).NO.4848/2010 JUDGMENT 16th February, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.4848 of 2010 4