IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2010 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 6646 of 2010(E) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ P.JASEERA, UPPER DIVISION CLERK,(NOW UNDER SUSPENSION) OFFICE OF THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, MANJERI NOW RESIDING AT KALLINGAL HOUSE, VALORGAL, PUNNAPPALA, WANDOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.V.RAJENDRAN, SMT.K.S.SABITHA. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR , VIGILANCE AND ANTI- CORRUPTION BUREAU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P. (C) No. 6646 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a U.D Clerk under the Commercial Taxes Department. She has been placed under suspension as per Ext.P1 order dated 31.12.2008 in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. It is submitted that though she was placed under suspension as per Ext.P1 order, in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings no disciplinary proceedings have been initiated as such. It is further contended that the order of suspension has not been reviewed despite the lapse of more than one year and for the past six months, the petitioner has not been given the subsistence allowance. 2. In view of the fact that the petitioner has been placed under suspension as per Ext.P1 order dated 31.12.2008, the respondents should have reviewed the order. In this case, though the petitioner was placed under suspension as per Ext.P1 by invoking the power under Rule 10 of the KCS(CCA) Rules, the petitioner has not so far filed any review under Rule 35 of the KCS (CCA) Rules. However, that cannot be a ground WPC.6646 of 2010 : 2 : for not reviewing the order of suspension in terms of Para 17 of the manual for disciplinary proceedings. True that the said provision provides for periodical review of the orders of suspension when the proceedings have been initiated. However, there is no ground for not conducting such an exercise in this case considering the non-initiation of disciplinary proceedings so far against the petitioner. Therefore, there shall be a direction to the first respondent to review Ext.P1 order dated 31.12.2008 in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. With respect to the grievance of the petitioner regarding the non-disbursement of subsistence allowance, the learned Government Pleader submitted that it was not disbursed solely on account of the non production of the non-employment certificate by the petitioner. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has subsequently submitted the non-employment certificate before the respondents. In the light of the said submissions, the respondents are directed to take appropriate action for disbursing the subsistence WPC.6646 of 2010 : 3 : allowance to the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from the date receipt of a copy of this judgment. This Writ Petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A. To Judge