IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2010 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 11471 of 2010(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.M.JOSEPH, (FORMERLY WORKING AS L.D.CLERK, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT), MAROZHUKAYIL HOUSE, PULIKKALKAVALA P.O., VAZHOOR, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 515. BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SRI.S.A.ANAND SRI.JOVY GEORGE VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN: 695 001. 2. CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION AND ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN: 695 033. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ARAVIND KUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 11471 of 2010 H ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 5th day of April, 2010 J U D G M E N T While working as Lower Division Clerk in the Irrigation Department, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner as per Ext.P1 memo of charges. Ultimately, the said proceedings initiated against him as per Ext.P1 culminated in removal from service as per Ext.P8. Feeling aggrieved by Ext.P8 order, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P9 appeal before the 1st respondent. Since Ext.P9 is a statutory appeal under Rule 23 of the Kerala Civil Service(Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1960, the 1st respondent is bound to consider and pass orders on Ext.P9. Ext.P9 has been submitted as early as on 10-02-2009. Despite the lapse of more than one year, no order has been issued on Ext.P9. It is in the said circumstances that this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 2. Ext.P9 is an appeal filed by the petitioner as provided under Rule 23 of the KCS(CC&A) Rules and, therefore, the 1st respondent should have passed orders thereon without any delay. WPC.11471/2010 : 2 : However, no order has been passed thereon after more than one year. In these circumstances, the 1st respondent is directed to consider and pass orders on Ext.P9, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner may produce a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent to enable the 1st respondent to implement the above direction. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge