IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 21ST MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 4368 of 2010(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.SAMRAJ, S/O.M.PARAMU, AGED 52 YEARS, JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT (UNDER SUSPENSION), VELLANADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, (RESIDING AT SOUMYA, P.O.OTTASEKHARAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 125). BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMSA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT DIVISION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, L S G D SECTION, KALLARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,KALLARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. THE SECRETARY, KALLARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KALLARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 4368 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Junior Superintendent working in Vellanadu Grama Panchayat, Thiruvananthapuram. As per Ext.P1 dated 7.1.2010, he was placed under suspension in connection with the grant of tender for construction of office building of Kallara Grama Panchayat. Against Ext.P1 order of suspension, the petitioner moved the first respondent through Ext.P8 review petition dated 1.2.2010. The contention of the petitioner is that Ext.P1 order is absolutely untenable. The petitioner has taken a specific ground as Ground No. (f) in the Writ Petition, which reads thus: “(f) It is submitted that while the decision No.1 (2) of Kallara Grama Panchayath dated 31-10-2008, granting the prayer of Sri. Ramakrishna Pillai for market value of cement and metal was taken, petitioner was not in charge of Kallara Grama Panchayath. True copy of his relieving order is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit P-9. It may be seen that the petitioner had placed the lowest tender W.P.(C) NO. 4368/2010 2 before the Kallara Grama Panchayath on 28-2- 2008 for its consideration.” 2. According to the petitioner, if the facts mentioned in Ground No. (f) is taken into consideration, Ext.P1 order of suspension cannot be sustained at all. Further, Ext.P9 order would reveal that he was not in charge of Kallara Grama Panchayat during the period when the alleged incident occurred. This crucial aspect was not taken into account while passing Ext.P1 order of suspension, it is submitted. 3. If the assertion made by the petitioner is correct, definitely that is a ground which requires consideration by the first respondent. As noticed earlier, expatiating the said details, the petitioner has already approached the first respondent through Ext.P8 review petition. Rule 35 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal ) Rules, 1960 provides for review against an order passed by the Government. Therefore, there is no reason for not considering Ext.P8 review petition filed by the petitioner, in the light of the specific grounds raised therein. Therefore, there will be a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P8 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Considering the W.P.(C) NO. 4368/2010 3 peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it is only proper that the petitioner is given an opportunity of being heard. Decision in terms of the above direction shall be taken only after hearing the petitioner. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) sp/ W.P.(C) NO. 4368/2010 4 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C) NO. 4368/2010 JUDGMENT 10th February, 2010