IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2009 / 29TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 26955 of 2008(H) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ V.K.THANKARAJ,VILLAGE OFFICER, RAJAKUMARI, (UNDER SUSPENSION), VELLIATHARA HOUSE, 21/212 A, PALLURUTHY, PERUMBADAPPU, COCHIN 682 006. BY ADVS. MR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, MR.S.RAJ MOHAN. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.26955/2008 H APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.LRD 6- 18503/08 DTD. 11/07/2008. P2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.SSI:34342/2007 DTD. 23/08/2007. P3: COPY OF THE GOOD SERVICE ENTRY CERTIFICATE DTD.16/04/2005. P4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DTD. 06/11/2007. P5: COPY OF THE 2ND RESPRESENTATION DTD. 06/03/2008. P6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER DTD. 15/04/2008. P7: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WPC.NO.16298 OF 2008 DTD. 02/06/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R2(A): COPY OF THE LR.NO.9299/E1/08/VIG. DTD. 27/09/08. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P(C) No.26955 of 2008-H ------------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of August, 2009. J U D G M E N T Heard Sri.S.Radhakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Antony Mukkath, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner, a Village Officer, was placed under suspension by Ext.P2 order dated 23.8.2007 passed by the District Collector, Idukki, pending disciplinary action against him. After the expiry of six months, he had filed Ext.P6 representation dated 15.4.2008 before the Land Revenue Commissioner seeking reinstatement in service and expeditious finalisation of the disciplinary action. He thereafter filed W.P (C) No. 16298 of 2008 in this Court. By Ext.P7 judgment delivered on 2.6.2008 this Court directed the Land Revenue Commissioner to treat Ext.P6 as an appeal (Ext.P6 was produced and marked as Ext.P5 in W.P(C) No.16298 of 2008) against the order of suspension and to pass orders thereon within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Land Revenue Commissioner accordingly considered Ext.P6 as an appeal and thereafter passed Ext.P1 order dated 11.7.2008 declining to reinstate the petitioner in service. Exts.P1 and P2 are under challenge in this writ petition. W.P(C) No.26955 of 2008-H 2 2. The pleadings disclose that for nearly two years, the petitioner has been continuing under suspension. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that till date not even the memo of charges has been issued. Para 17 of the Manual for Disciplinary Proceedings states that cases of Government servants who are continuing under suspension pending disciplinary proceedings initiated against them for a period exceeding 6 months have to be reviewed. It is also stated that where it is not possible to adhere to the said time limit, the authority which placed the officer under suspension should report the facts to the next higher authority and the said authority should review the case and issue appropriate orders continuing or cancelling suspension. In the light of the fact that nearly two years have passed after the petitioner was placed under suspension and as no progress has been made in the disciplinary action, I am of the opinion that the Government should consider whether the petitioner should continue under suspension. I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with a direction that in the event of the petitioner filing an appropriate representation before the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, the Government should consider the same and pass orders thereon expeditiously and in any event within two months from the date on which the petitioner moves the Government. Needless to say the petitioner shall also be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The contentions of the petitioner on the merits are kept open. ab P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE