IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2008 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 14433 of 2008(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M.P.NASSARUDEEN, III GRADE OVERSEER, IDAMALAYAR IRRIGATION PROJECT, SECTION 2/3, BOOTHATHANKETTU. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, B.S.P. SUB DIVISION NO.1, PADINJARATHARA, WAYANAD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 14433 of 2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 20.6.2007 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15.10.07 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.1.08 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.1.08 OF THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER EXT.P5- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 6.5.08 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P6- TRUE COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER DATED 21.4.08 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P7- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2.5.08 IN W.P.(C). 13865/08 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT (TRUE COPY) P.A TO JUDGE V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).14433/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Detailed facts relating to the issue in question has been narrated in the judgment disposing of writ petition No.13865/2008. Therefore, I refrain from embarking upon the appraisal of the same in this writ petition. But for the sake of convenience, a copy of the judgment in Writ Petition No.13865/2008 may be appended along with this. 2. Petitioner, an Overseer in the Water Resources Department challenges Ext.P6 order of suspension. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner was an Overseer, he had nothing to do with the work in question referred to in Ext.P6, at any point of time. Therefore, the Government has acted illegally in not considering this aspect while passing an order of suspension. In my view, this is an aspect which may have to be considered by the Government in an application under Rule 10(6) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules. W.P.(C).14433/2008 2 3. In the result, writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to move for revocation of Ext.P6 order of suspension. In so far as he is concerned, if an application is filed within a period of two weeks from today, it shall be considered and appropriate orders passed thereon within four weeks from the date of receipt of such application, by the first respondent. Petitioner shall be heard, if there is a proposal to pass an order adverse to his claim. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs