IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 29TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 4148 of 2010(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.C.YELDO, VILLAGE ASSISTANT (UNDER SUSPENSION), KOMBANAD VILLAGE OFFICE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SMT.POOJA SURENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 33. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE DIRECTOR, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 4148 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as Village Assistant in Kombanad Village in Ernakulam District. He was placed under suspension as per Ext.P1 order dated 26.11.2008. Earlier, he approached this Court challenging the order of suspension by filing W.P.(C) No.22632 of 2009. The said Writ Petition was disposed of as per Ext.P3 judgment dated 21.8.2009 with a direction to the second respondent herein to consider the representation, if any, filed by the petitioner, in consultation with the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau and pass orders thereon within three moths from the date on which the petitioner moves the second respondent. Pursuant to the said direction, the matter was considered by the second respondent and Ext.P4 order dated 28.12.2009 was passed. It is aggrieved by Ext.P4 order that this Writ Petition is filed. 2. The petitioner is under suspension since 26.11.2008. Ext.P4 order was passed by the second respondent pursuant to the direction W.P.(C) NO. 4148/2010 2 contained in Ext.P3 judgment. A perusal of Ext.P4 would reveal that there was no independent application of mind by the second respondent while passing the said order. It is true that as per Ext.P3 judgment, permission was granted to the second respondent to consult the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau. However, after such consultation, the second respondent was bound to take an independent decision, ofcourse taking into account the recommendation of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau. It is evident from Ext.P4 that there was no such consideration by the second respondent. In fact, the request of the petitioner for reviewing Ext.P1 order of suspension was dismissed on the sole ground that as per Government letter No.10793/E1/09/Vig. dated 24.1.2.2009, the claim of a person placed under suspension in a vigilance trap case can be considered only on completion of two years from the date of suspension. The petitioner has produced Exts.P5 to P8 Circulars which would go to show that the said conclusion arrived at by the second respondent is unsustainable. In fact the second respondent should have considered the question of reviewing Ext.P1 order of suspension in terms of the relevant Circulars and also taking into account the circumstances under which the petitioner was placed under suspension and such other attending circumstances. In the light of Ext.P3 judgment, the second respondent was bound to consider the question of reviewing Ext.P1 order in accordance W.P.(C) NO. 4148/2010 3 with law and in the light of Exts.P5 to P8 Circulars, taking into account the stage of the proceedings initiated against him and not in the manner in which it has been considered as per Ext.P4 order. 3. In the result, Ext.P4 order is set aside. Consequently, there will be a direction to the second respondent to review Ext.P1 order of suspension in accordance with law, especially taking into account Exts.P5 to P8 Circulars, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The direction as above will be complied with and orders shall be passed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) sp/ W.P.(C) NO. 4148/2010 4 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C) NO. 4148/2010 JUDGMENT 18th February, 2010