IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 21ST MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 4389 of 2009(V) ------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- C.R.RAHULAN, BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER (UNDER SUSPENSION) MULLASSERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.JALEEL SRI.P.M.MOHAMMED HASSAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. COMMISSIONER FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICER OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. PROJECT DIRECTOR, POVERTY ALLEVIANCE UNIT (PAU) THRISSUR. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No. 4389 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 10th February,2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner, while working as Block Development Officer, was suspended from service as per Exhibit-P1 order. Exhibit-P1 is dated 23.5.2008. Proceedings have been issued by the 2nd respondent, the District Collector. The suspension is pending detailed enquiry to the allegations raised against him. 2. Petitioner approached this Court by filing WPC No.17205 of 2008 challenging the said order of suspension which was disposed of by Exhibit-P2 judgment. This Court disposed of the said writ petition directing the petitioner to avail the remedy of an appeal or an application for revocation of suspension before the same authority. Accordingly, he moved the District Collector by Exhibit-P3 and he has produced a copy of judgment along with the said representation. It is averred that the same was not considered. W.P ( C) No. 4389 of 2009 2 3. In that view of the matter he has filed an appeal before the 1st respondent as per Exhibit-P4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in spite of the receipt of the same, no action is being taken in the matter. Petitioner contends that the allegations against him are not true. 4. Whether the petitioner should be kept under suspension and whether the same has to be continued or not is a matter for the authority to decide. Since he has availed of the remedy by way of an appeal as per Exhibit-P4 and the same is pending without any consideration, the 1st respondent is directed to consider and pass orders on Exhibit-P4, after hearing the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No. 4389 of 2009 3 W.P ( C) No. 4389 of 2009 4