IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2009 / 24TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 28416 of 2009(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- S.RAJAN, BINDER(UNDER SUSPENSION), IPP PRESS, KERALA HEALTH RESEARCH AND WELFARE SOCIETY(KHRWS), GENERAL HOSPITAL CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.RAJESH SMT.A.K.PREETHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH DEPARTMENT, VICE CHAIRMAN, KERALA HEALTH RESEARCH AND WELFARE SOEICTY (KHRWS), GENERAL HOSPITAL CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KERALA HEALTH RESEARCH AND WELFARE SOCIETY(KHRWS), GENERAL HOSPITAL CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA HEALTH RESEARCH AND WELFARE SOCIETY (KHRWS), GENERAL HOSPITAL CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. SMT.USHA TITUS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA HEALTH RESEARCH AND WELFARE SOCIETY (KHRWS), GENERAL HOSPITAL CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. R.LEELA, IPP PRESS, KERALA HEALTH RESEARCH AND WELFARE SOCEITY (KHRWS), GENERAL HOSPITAL CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, IPP PRESS, KERALA HEALTH RESEARCH AND WELFARE SOCIETY (KHRWS), GENERAL HOSPITAL CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. WP(C).No. 28416 of 2009 -2- 7. P.SREEDHARAN NAIR, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR IN CHARGE, IPP PRESS, KERALA HEALTH RESEARCH AND WELFARE SOCIETY (KHRWS), GENERAL HOSPITAL CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 8. M.S.MANOJ KUMAR, HELPER, IPP PRESS, KERALA HEALTH RESEARCH AND WELFARE SOCIETY (KHRWS), GENERAL HOSPITAL CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.M.AJAY,SC,KERALA HEALTH RESEARCH&WE FOR R2TO4,6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).28416/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 16th day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.M.R.Rajesh and Mr.M.Ajay learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2, 3, 4 and 6. 2. Petitioner, who is employed as a binder under the 2nd respondent, was suspended pursuant to a complaint filed by the 5th respondent raising several allegations including certain allegations of sexual harassment. The complaint was referred to a Committee, in terms of the dictum of the Supreme Court in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997 (6) SCC 241). It is now admitted that an enquiry by the said Committee has been completed and they have recommended for the registration of a crime against the petitioner and a complaint has been forwarded. They also recommended disciplinary proceedings. But such disciplinary proceedings has not been initiated so far. 3. In the meanwhile, it is alleged that the petitioner while under suspension, on 18.8.2009 had banged into the IPP press and had assaulted Mr.Manoj Kumar, the 8th respondent. W.P.(C).28416/09 2 Pursuant thereto, Ext.P28 show cause notice was issued. But show cause notice has been issued requiring him to show cause why his service should not be terminated. Petitioner has submitted Ext.P30 objections refuting the allegations alleged in Ext.P28 and also seeking a reinstatement in service. 4. On instructions, learned counsel for respondents 2, 3, 4 and 6 submits that Ext.P28 is only a show cause notice. Petitioner's explanation to Ext.P28 as Ext.P30 would be considered and if the explanation is not found to be satisfactory, then, a full fledged enquiry would be conducted and a punishment in the nature of termination of the service, which is a major punishment, would obviously be contemplated only after such enquiry. Submission is recorded. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the enquiry by the Committee constituted in terms of the directions in Vishaka has been completed, it is not justified to continue to place the petitioner under suspension. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that the question of continuing the petitioner under suspension will be considered in the light of the allegations contained in Ext.P28 also. W.P.(C).28416/09 3 6. 3rd respondent shall within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, consider the question of revoking the petitioner's suspension. If a further enquiry pursuant to Ext.P28, in spite of Ext.P30 explanation, is found to be necessary, then, that may be proceeded with. But nevertheless, the necessity to place the petitioner under suspension should be independently considered. A decision in the matter of revoking the suspension of the petitioner shall be taken within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner shall be paid subsistence allowance for the period during which he has been kept under suspension, as per Rules. Other contentions raised by the petitioner are left open. Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs