IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 21ST MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 430 of 2010(C) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.K.SASIDHARAN.B., NO.1866, ACCOUNTANT SPECIAL GRADE, HINDUSTAN INSECTICIDES LTD., UDYOGAMANDAL. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. HINDUSTAN INSECTICIDES LIMITED, UDYOGAMANDAL, KOCHI-01, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE OFFICER IN CHARGE, HINDUSTAN INSECTICIDES LIMITED, UDYOGAMANDAL, KOCHI-01. ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.V.J.ANAND SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 430 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as Accountant Special Grade under the first respondent. While so, he was placed under suspension, as per Ext.P3 order dated 1.1.2010, on the allegation that he had supplied information obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005, with respect to the educational qualification of another employee under the first respondent in order to facilitate action against the first respondent-company. In fact, Ext.P3 is a composite order, that is, suspension order coupled with a show cause notice. As per Ext.P3, besides placing the petitioner under suspension, he was also asked to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for the alleged misconduct. 2. When the matter came up for admission, the learned counsel for the respondents, on instruction, submitted that Ext.P3 need be treated only as a show cause notice and that the petitioner will be given liberty to offer his explanation with respect to the allegations made therein and that W.P.(C) NO. 430/2010 2 appropriate orders will be passed only after considering such explanation. Learned counsel further submitted that though Ext.P3 is an order of suspension, it will not be treated as such and that the period under which the petitioner was placed under suspension, based on Ext.P3, would be regularised. 3. The above submissions are recorded. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the petitioner may submit his explanation with respect to the allegations levelled against him, as per Ext.P3, within a period of two weeks from today. If such an explanation is received, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. Needless to say that, in view of the submissions recorded, the petitioner shall be reinstated into the service forthwith. The Writ Petition is accordingly closed. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) sp/ W.P.(C) NO. 430/2010 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C) NO. 430/2010 JUDGMENT 10th February, 2010