IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2009 / 19TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 19328 of 2009(I) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ T.RAMESAN,TUG MASTER GRADE-III,(UNDER SUSPENSION),PORT OFFICE,BEYPORE,CALICUT. BY ADV. MR.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. DIRECTOR OF PORTS,KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033. 2. THE PORT OFFICER,PORT OFFICE,BEYPORE, CALICUT. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.19328 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated 10th July, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard Sri.S.Mohammed Al Rafi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Anu Sivaraman, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner, who is presently working as Tug Master Grade-III in the Port Office at Kozhikode was placed under suspension by Ext.P1 order dated 15.10.2008 on the allegation that he had consumed alcohol during office hours and had also misbehaved to his superiors and subordinates. The petitioner's grievance is that though more than six months have passed after he was placed under suspension, the order of suspension has not been reviewed as required under Paragraph 17 of the Manual for Disciplinary Proceedings. 3. The pleadings disclose that the petitioner was placed under suspension on 15.10.2008 and that shortly thereafter Ext.P3 memo of charges and statement of allegations of misconduct was also served on him. Paragraph 17 of the Manual for Disciplinary Proceedings mandates that cases of employees continuing under suspension for more than six months WP(C).No.19328/2009 2 have to be reviewed, if the disciplinary proceedings have not been finalised in the meanwhile. The petitioner has submitted Ext.P5 representation before the Director of Ports who had issued Ext.P1 order of suspension seeking revocation of the suspension. In my opinion, since the petitioner has already moved the first respondent in that regard, it is for the first respondent to take a decision having regard to the fact that more than six months have passed after the petitioner was placed under suspension. I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to consider the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P5 representation and take a decision thereon expeditiously and in any event within one month from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before him along with a copy of the writ petition. Needless to say, the petitioner shall also be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard before orders are passed on Ext.P5. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge TKS