IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2010 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 21679 of 2008(E) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- THERESIA D'COUTH, SENIOR ACCOUNTANT, DISTRICT TREASURY, KANNUR. RESIDING AT LOVE DALE, MELLAMAY PARAMBIL, VIA.CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE, BY ADV.MR.MILLU DANDAPANI. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF TREASURIES, THIRUVNANTHAPURAM. 2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF TREASURIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER, KANNUR. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SMITHA SUKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.21679/2008 E APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF ORDER NO.12615/2004/VIG. DTD. 21/03/2005 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P2: COPY OF MEMO OF CHARGES ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER VIDE NO.VIG.1/12615/2004(3) DTD. 4/11/2005. P3: COPY OF ORDER NO.VIG.2/12615/2004 DTD. 12/07/2007 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS. P4: COPY OF ORDER NO.B3/1183/2008 DTD. 1/03/2008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P5: COPY OF EXTRACT OF FINAL SENIORITY LIST OF SENIOR ACCOUNTANTS OF TREASURY DEPARTMENT FOR THE PERIOD 1/10/1995 TO 31/12/2000. P6: COPY OF ORDER NO.A1/10/2008 DTD. 25/04/2008 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. P7: COPY OF ORDER NO.B2/106/2007 DTD. 29/03/2007 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT, REFERRED TO IN THE WRIT PETITION. P8: COPY OF ORDER NO.B3/107/08 DTD. 3/07/2008 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT REFERRED TO IN THE WRIT PETITION. P9: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 30/01/2008 IN WPC.NO.1754/2008 (H) OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. P10: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DTD.16/7/2008 ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF SMT. K.V.VASANTHY. P11: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DTD. 12/12/2008. P12: COPY OF ORDER NO.B3/2090/09 DTD. 9/06/2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE kss THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.21679 of 2008-E = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 25th day of March, 2010. Judgment 1.The petitioner is employed in the Department of Treasuries. She was placed under suspension when certain allegations were raised in relation to some treasury transactions. There was a vigilance enquiry. No disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, though memo of charges was initially issued. However, the Vigilance did not even enumerate the petitioner as an accused person even in the FIR. Therefore, it is not a case where charge was submitted against the petitioner before a competent criminal court. Nor is it a case where any disciplinary proceedings followed on the basis of the allegations. Obviously, therefore, the suspension period has to be considered by taking the suspension as non-stigmatic. Hence, there is no reason to delay the issuance of an order as to WPC21679/08 -: 2 :- how period of suspension shall be treated as there was no charge framed against the petitioner and no proceedings was also initiated and pending in accordance with law. The question of considering the petitioner for promotion could not also have been held back. It is also a case where sealed cover procedure need not be resorted to, in the light of the aforesaid facts. Therefore, this writ petition is ordered quashing Ext.P4 and directing the competent respondent to take up the case of the petitioner de novo and issue orders as to the manner in which the period of suspension would be treated in the light of what is stated above and also by considering the case of the petitioner for promotion with effect from the date on which her juniors, namely, T.I.Kassim and K.Remani, were given promotion as per Ext.P8. In so far as her claim for higher grade is concerned, the competent respondent will pass orders, either way, on merits. All these shall be done after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, within 45 days from WPC21679/08 -: 3 :- the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. All other issues on merits are left open. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/2503