IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2008 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 9093 of 2008(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- K.MADHUSOODANAN, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.T.KRISHNAN NAIR, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES (GW) DEPARTMENT, PIP (CAD) DIVISION, CHENGANNUR (NOW UNDER SUSPENSION), RESIDING AT T.C.36/574-1, KRISHNA KRIPA, PALKULANGARA JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 8. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR SRI.LEO GEORGE RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, WATER RESOURCES (A) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (IRRIGATION & ADMINISTRATION), PUBLIC OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.9093 of 2008 ------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as an Executive Engineer. While so, he was suspended from service vide order dated 12.7.2007, pending disciplinary enquiry into certain irregularities alleged to have been committed by the petitioner and two other officers. Memo of charges were issued as per Ext.P2 dated 16.11.2007. The petitioner submitted Ext.P3 written statement of defence dated 14.12.2007. Essentially, the petitioner is aggrieved in this case that he is kept under suspension as per Ext.P1 order, notwithstanding Ext.P5 application for revocation, submitted by the petitioner under Rule 22 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules. 2. The petitioner submits that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the other two officers, who were suspended along with him, have been completed and they have been reinstated in service, as evidenced by Ext.P7 order. At the same time, the petitioner continues under suspension. 3. I heard learned learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. W.P.(C).NO.9093/08 :: 2 :: 4. There is no justification for not considering the petitioner's application for revocation of the suspension. This is especially because the disciplinary proceedings, against the two other officers, who were suspended along with the petitioner under Ext.P1, have been completed as evidenced by Ext.P7. The punishment imposed on them is a warning that they should be more diligent in dealing with the Government records. 5. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P2 and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P5 expeditiously, at any rate, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, keeping in mind Ext.P7 order also. The other contentions of the petitioner are left open. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 2nd respondent. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge