IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2011 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 7971 of 2008(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- LATHA P.P., FIRST GRADE OVERSEER, N.H.SUB-DIVISION, NORTH PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHIEF ENGINEER (ADMINISTRATION), OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PWD NATIONAL HIGHWAY AND ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.SANDESH RAJA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 7971/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE REPORT DTD.28.7.06. P2. COPY OF THE REPORT BEFORE R2. P3. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.18.12.07. P4. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).No. 5193/08. P5. COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS. P6. COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD.11.9.07. P7. COPY OF THE SUBMISSION DTD.28.6.07 BY I.V.RAJAGOPALAN. P8. COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DTD.1.1.2011 BEFORE R2. P8.(SIC) COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.29.9.06. P8A. (SIC). COPY OF THE MEMO ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF MINISTER. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: R2A. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.16.6.06. B. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.6.7.06. C. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.25.5.06. D COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.21.8.06. F. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.28.9.06. G. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.28.9.06. H. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.27.3.08. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 7971 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 14th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P5 memo of charges and Ext.P5(a) statement of allegations appended to the same, dated 16.2.2008. According to the petitioner, the memo of charges was issued on a wrong appreciation of the facts involved. Therefore, the petitioner has filed Ext.P8 explanation to the charge memo. For the present the petitioner would be satisfied if the 2nd respondent considers Ext.P8 before proceeding further in the disciplinary proceedings. 2. Having heard the learned Government Pleader also, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P8 and decide as to whether, in view of the explanation contained in Ext.P8, the disciplinary proceedings should be proceeded with. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 2