IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 3RD APRIL 2009 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 11089 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.V.MANIAPPAN, JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT, PERFORMANCE AUDIT UNIT III, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN SMT.NISHA BOSE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 11089 of 2009 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as a Junior Superintendent in Performance Audit Unit. He was put in additional charge of Secretary of Erumeli Grama Panchayat. 2. The writ petition has been filed challenging the order Ext.P7, by which the petitioner is suspended from service by the Director of Panchayat. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations raised against him are not correct. It is also pointed out the petitioner had been taking earnest steps in the matter referred to therein. It is submitted that he was expecting a transfer to Maradu or Eroor in Ernakulam district, during General Transfer, 2008. Ext.P9 is produced in support of the said plea. It is submitted that the petitioner has already filed Ext.P8 before the Director of Panchayat seeking to revoke the order of suspension. Since the petitioner has already moved the competent authority it is for the said authority to take a decision on Ext.P8 in accordance with law. In the result the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P8 after hearing the wpc/11089/2009 2 petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner also prays that the request made by him during the General Transfer, 2008 may also be considered. If he is being reinstated, after revoking the suspension, the said request also will be considered. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE bps