IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2011/9TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WPC.No. 31907 of 2011 (K) ---------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------- 1. NIRMALA.K.V., AGED 46 YEARS, THARAYIL HOUSE, CHITATTUKARA.P.O., PAVARTY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. (GRADE I STAFF NURSE, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTER VADAKKEKAD, THRISSUR) BY ADV.SRI.C.D.DILEEP RESPONDENT(S) : -------------------------- 1. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001 2. DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH, D.M.O. OFFICE, COLLEGE ROAD THRISSUR DISTRICT-680003. 3. P. UNNIKRISHNAN, U.D. CLERK, D.M.O. OFFICE, COLLEGE ROAD THRISSUR DISTRICT-680003. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. LIJU STEPHEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-11-2011 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WPC.No. 31907 of 2011 (K) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 29.12.2009. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE EXPLANATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT THROUGH THE MEDICAL OFFICER PAVARATY, DATED 10.02.2010. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 10.04.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT THROUGH THE MEDICAL OFFICER VADAKKEKAD CHC. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO DATED 19.07.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE REPLY TO THE EXT-P4 FILED BY THE PETITIONER, DATED 07.09.2010. EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE EXPLANATION OF THE PETITIONER TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 01.02.2011. EXT.P7 : COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27.03.2011 IMPOSING PUNISHMENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P8 : COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 22.11.2011 PENDING BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.31907 of 2011-K. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 30th November, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is working as a Grade I Staff Nurse in the Primary Health Center, Vadakkekad in Thrissur district under the second respondent. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the disciplinary proceedings initiated against her which has culminated in Ext.P7 order of the second respondent. As per Ext.P7, two increments of the petitioner have been barred with cumulative effect. 2. According to the petitioner, the disciplinary action initiated against her was on the basis of a complaint made by the third respondent who was working in the office of the second respondent. The allegation against her is that she had telephoned the third respondent and had threatened him saying that she would commit suicide if an order of deputation duty allotted to her was not withdrawn. The WP(C).No.31907/2011-K. 2 petitioner contends that the allegation against her is baseless and false. The petitioner had earlier submitted a complaint against the third respondent alleging harassment at the work place. The petitioner had also approached the 'Vanitha Cell' Thrissur for the redressal of her grievance. The proceedings were closed with a warning to the third respondent not to repeat such conduct. The petitioner contends that Ext.P7 has been issued without taking note of the above earlier proceedings. The petitioner has therefore challenged Ext.P8 in appeal before the first respondent. However, no orders have been passed thereon till date. 3. I have heard the learned Govt.Pleader also. 4. I notice that Ext.P7 is dated 27.3.2011, which according to the petitioner, has been served on her only much later. According to the counsel for the petitioner, she was not aware that her increments were going to be cut. The appeal Ext.P8 is dated 22.11.2011. Anyhow, since the petitioner has challenged the punishment against her by WP(C).No.31907/2011-K. 3 filing Ext.P8 appeal, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of directing the appeal to be considered and disposed of expeditiously. The petitioner may move the appellate authority for a stay of the punishment that has been imposed on her, if she is so advised. 5. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner evidenced herein by Ext.P8 in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the petitioner submits an application for stay, the same shall be considered and necessary orders shall be passed thereon, before finally disposing of Ext.P8. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, (Judge) Kvs/-