IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2008 / 28TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 24901 of 2008(M) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER : ---------------- P.ABDUL KHADER, S/O.ASSAINAR, LINEMAN GRADE-1,(NOW UNDER SUSPENSION), KSEB, YETHADKA HOUSE PO., YETHADKA, KASARAGOD DIST., PIN-671551. BY ADV. SRI.K.SHRIHARI RAO SMT.N.SHOBHA RESPONDENTS : ------------------- 1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KSEB, KASARASGOD. 2. CHIEF ENGINEER(HRM), VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, KSEB, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM. BY SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.24901 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 19th August, 2008 J U D G M E N T By Exhibit-P1 order dated 27.2.2007, the petitioner was placed under suspension on the allegation that he had demanded and accepted bribe from a consumer. Pursuant to Exhibit-P1, a memo of charges was issued and the petitioner submitted his written statement of defence. It is submitted that there has been no progress in the enquiry thereafter. The petitioner submits that in Exhibit P4, he has sought a review of suspension and reinstatement in service. It is submitted that based on Exhibit-P4, the Executive Engineer sent Exhibit-P5 letter to the Chief Engineer, the second respondent herein. The petitioner has ,in this writ petition, inter alia prayed that having regard to the fact that he is continuing under suspension since 27.2.2007, the second respondent may be directed to consider Exhibit-P4 and pass orders thereon having regard to the contents of Exhibit-P5 letter. W.P ( C) No.24901 of 2008 2 I have heard Sri.K.Shri.Hari Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.K.S. Anil, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. As the petitioner is continuing under suspension from 27.2.2007 and as no progress has been made in the disciplinary enquiry initiated as per Exhibit-P2, it is only proper that the request made by the petitioner in Exhibit-P4 is considered by the second respondent. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the second respondent to consider Exhibit-P4 in the light of Exhibit-P5 and take a decision thereon. This shall be done within a period of two months from the date on which the petitioner produces a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall also be heard before orders are passed on Exhibit-P5. (P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.24901 of 2008 3 W.P ( C) No.24901 of 2008 4