IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2010 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 11038 of 2010(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.BALAKRISHNA WARRIAR KOTTARTHIL WARRIAM KUMMANOOR PO, KUMMANOOR KOTTAYAM, SECRETARY, KANAKKARI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KOTTAYAM BY ADV. SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN (MVA) SRI.A.R.EASWAR LAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY LOCAL ADMINISTRATION(EPB) DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT PANCHAYAT DIRECTORATE, TRIVANDRUM 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT KOTTAYAM 4. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME(VIGILANCE) GOVT. OF KERALA, GOVT. SECRETARIAT TRIVANDRUM GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 11038 of 2010 D ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 6th day of April, 2010 J U D G M E N T While working as Secretary of Kanakari Grama Panchayat, the petitioner was served with Ext.P1 memo of charges dated 16-08-2006. The allegations pertain to unauthorised expenditure of Panchayat Fund and such other financial irregularities. Long later, he was placed under suspension as per Ext.P3 dated 12-03-2008. The grievance of the petitioner is that certain important and crucial aspects were not taken into consideration by the respondents in ordering suspension and also in continuing with the suspension of the petitioner. As noticed earlier, the memo of charges was issued as early as on 16-08-2006 and thereafter he was transferred from Kanakari Grama Panchayat. It was while working in another Grama Panchayat i.e., Bharananganam Grama Panchayat, that the petitioner was placed under suspension as per Ext.P3 dated 12-03-2008. More than two years have lapsed since the order of suspension. Though the suspension review committee had WPC.11038/2010 : 2 : convened on 09-07-2009, they have rejected the request of the petitioner for reviewing Ext.P3 order of suspension. A perusal of Ext.P9 would reveal that the aforesaid aspects were not seem to have been considered by the respondents. That apart, about six months have elapsed since Ext.P9. As per paragraph 17 of the Mannual for Disciplinary Proceedings, the respondents are bound to convene a meeting of the suspension review committee to consider the prospects for reviewing the order of suspension in respect of the persons, who are facing disciplinary proceedings. 2. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to take appropriate steps for considering the question of reviewing Ext.P3 order dated 12-03- 2008. Needless to say that while considering the said question, the respondents are bound to take into consideration the above mentioned aspects, namely, the petitioner was placed under suspension in connection with certain incidents occurred and irregularities alleged to have been committed by him while working as Secretary in Kanakari Grama Panchayat and at the time of placing him under suspension, he was working in another Grama WPC.11038/2010 : 3 : Panchayat. The fact that it was after more than one year since the initiation of disciplinary proceedings that he was placed under suspension shall also be taken into consideration. Such an order considering the aforesaid aspects shall be passed by the competent authority among the respondents, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In case the respondents arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner cannot be reinstated in service pending disciplinary proceedings, they shall take steps to complete the disciplinary proceedings, including passing of final orders thereon, expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment, considering the fact that Ext.P1 memo of charges was issued as early on 16-08-2006. In case of failure to complete the disciplinary proceedings as directed above, the petitioner shall be reinstated in service forthwith. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) aks