IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH DECEMBER 2008 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 36691 of 2008(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SAIDALAVI O., S/O. MUHAMMED, ASSISTANT ' ENGINEER (UNDER SUSPENSION),K.S.E.B, NOW RESIDING AT "GAZAL" VYDYARANGADI, KOZHIKKODE. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), K.S.E.B. VYDHUTHI BHAVAN,TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, K.S.E.B. MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, MALAPPURAM. BY SC SRI.K.S.ANIL, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ====================================== W.P.(C)No. 36691 of 2008 ====================================== Dated this the 12th day of December 2008 JUDGMENT Heard Sri.Babu S.Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.K.S.Anil, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Kerala State Electricity Board. 2. The petitioner, an Assistant Engineer in the service of the Kerala State Electricity Board was placed under suspension by Ext.P1 Order dated 15.12.2007 issued by the second respondent. The petitioner was placed under suspension for the reason that he was arrested by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau on 14.12.2007 while accepting bribe. The petitioner has in Ext.P3 representation dated 22.4.2008 moved the first respondent seeking revocation of the order of suspension and reinstatement in service. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Regulation-10 of the Regulations framed by the Kerala State Electricity Board empowers the authority who passed the order of suspension or the authority, to which that authority is immediately subordinate to revoke the order of suspension, if grounds exist therefor. The learned counsel further submits that the report filed by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau in the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode will reveal that the complainant in the vigilance case which led to his arrest is a fictitious person and that he was falsely implicated W.P.(C)No.36691/2008 2 in the criminal case. 3. In my opinion, as the petitioner has already moved the Chief Engineer, who is competent under the regulations framed by the Board to review the order of suspension passed by the subordinate authorities, it is for that authority to decide whether having regard to the facts set out in Ext.P3 representation, the order of suspension should be reviewed or not. Since that authority is yet to take a decision in the matter, I dispose of the Writ Petition with a direction to the first respondent to consider the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P3 and take a decision thereon after affording him an opportunity of being heard. This shall be done within a period of two months from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE css/