IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2009 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 11428 of 2009(W) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- K.J. JOY, S/O THE LATE K.M.JOSEPH, AGED 57 YEARS, CONTINGENT SANITATION WORKER, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, CHANGANACHERRY, RESIDING AT KALATHARA PUTHICHIRA, CHERANCHIRA P.O., CHANGANACHERRY-686 106. BY MR.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE ADV. SMT.REKHA VASUDEVAN ADV. MR.ANIL PARATHARA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL ADMINISTRATION AND SOCIAL WELFARE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHANGANACHERRY MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, CHANGANACHERRY. 3. MUNICIPAL SECRETARY, CHANGANACHERRY MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, CHANGANACHERRY. R1 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN R2 & R3 BY ADV. MR.SIBY MATHEW, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P.(C) No. 11428 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 25th day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard Sri. O.V. Radhakrishnan, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, Smt. Anu Sivaraman, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and Sri Sibi Mathew, the learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3. 2. The petitioner, a Contingent Sanitation Worker of Changanacherry Municipality, was placed under suspension by Ext.P2 order dated 14.11.2008 passed by the Secretary of the Municipality for the reason he did not obey a direction issued by the Health Inspector. Shortly thereafter, Ext.P3 memo of charges dated 28.11.2008 was issued and the petitioner submitted his reply. In this writ petition the petitioner challenges Ext.P2 order. He contends that there was no reason at all to suspend him from service and though more than six months have passed after W.P.(C) 11428/09 -2- the order of suspension was passed, an enquiry into the charges has not been conducted and the disciplinary proceedings has not been finalized. The petitioner has also got a grievance regarding the subsistence allowance payable to him. 3. The learned standing counsel appearing for the Changanacherry Municipality submits that the Municipality will finalize the disciplinary proceedings within one month from today. He does not, however, have any explanation as to why disciplinary action pursuant to Ext.P3 memo of charges dated 28.11.2008 has not so far been finalized, though six months have passed thereafter. The pleadings disclose that the petitioner, a Sanitation Worker, was placed under suspension for disobeying the direction issued by the Health Inspector. Ext.P1 is the report submitted by the Health Inspector complaining about the petitioner’s misconduct. Nerely six months have passed after he was placed under suspension. The charges levelled against him could have been enquired into and the disciplinary W.P.(C) 11428/09 -3- proceedings could have been finalized within the said period. However, after placing the petitioner under suspension and issuing the memo of charges, the Municipality has not proceeded with the disciplinary proceedings. As a result, the services of a Sanitation Worker was lost to the Municipality. He is also paid nearly 75% of the monthly emoluments as subsistence allowance. On the facts disclosed, I agree with the petitioner that he is being kept under suspension unnecessarily without finalizing the disciplinary proceedings. I also agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the continued suspension of the petitioner is detrimental to public interest, in the sense that an idling employ is paid for sitting at home. I also agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that within the period of six months, which has expired after the petitioner was placed under suspension, the disciplinary enquiry could have been completed. 4. It is trite law that suspension is not a punishment. W.P.(C) 11428/09 -4- Paragraph 17 of the Manual of Disciplinary Proceedings stipulates that cases of employees continuing under suspension for more than six months have to be reviewed. In the instant case, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 14.11.2008. Besides the facts noted above, it is also evident that the authority who placed the petitioner under suspension has not chosen to review the order of suspension. It appears that the Secretary was interested only in suspending the petitioner and not in proceeding with the disciplinary action. In these circumstances, I am inclined to hold that the continued suspension of the petitioner is detrimental to public interest. I, accordingly, direct respondents 2 and 3 to forthwith reinstate the petitioner in service. I also direct the competent authority among respondents 2 and 3 to finalize the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P3 memo of charges within three months from today. I make it clear that I have not pronounced upon the merits of the charges leveled against the petitioner and that it will be W.P.(C) 11428/09 -5- open to the disciplinary authority to finalize the disciplinary proceedings based on the findings in the enquiry or the materials on record. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. mn.