IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2008 / 17TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 27390 of 2007(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ ROY WILFRED, JUNIOR HEALTH INSPECTOR GRADE-II, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, PAZHAMPALAKKODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.S.KARTHIKA SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.M.R.ANISON SRI.T.R.RAJESH SMT.K.P.GEETHAMANI RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT., HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES (P & H), DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICES, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES (P & H), DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICES, TRIVANDRUM. 4. SMT. P.K.JAMEELA, THE SUPERINTENDENT, DISTRICT HOSPITAL, PALAKKAD. 5. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH), DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICE, PALAKKAD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).27390/2007 -------------------- Dated this the 7th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT While the petitioner was working as Junior Health Inspector Grade-II in the Kizhakkancherry Primary Health Centre, Palakkad, a Laproscopic Training Camp was conducted in the District Hospital, Palakkad from 11.11.2003 to 24.11.2003. Apparently training camp did not proceed as scheduled and there was some disturbance in the premises at the instance of the relatives of the patients. Thereafter the petitioner and the Health Inspector Mr.Johny Joseph were placed under suspension. They moved for revocation of suspension and the suspension was revoked. Then they sought for a regularisation of the period of suspension and by Ext.P1 order, the Additional Director of Health Services directed that the suspension period of the petitioner and the Health Inspector will be treated as eligible leave. 2. In the normal circumstances, if Government was of the opinion that disciplinary proceedings ought to be W.P.(C).27390/2007 2 initiated, it should have been initiated without further delay as such. Obviously continuance of disciplinary proceedings was not dependant on the revocation of suspension. But Ext.P2 memo of charges came to be issued only on 4.1.2007. Petitioner submitted his reply thereto and ultimately by Ext.P4, an order was passed by the Director of Health Services stating that though the explanation given by the petitioner to the memo of charges was not found to be satisfactory, taking a lenient view, a punishment of censure was awarded to him. By Ext.P5 order, the suspension period of the petitioner from 21.11.2003 to 23.1.2004 was regularized as eligible leave, limited to the pay and allowance already drawn. It seems that the petitioner challenged Ext.P5 before the Government and Government passed Ext.P6 order without interfering with Ext.P5. At the same time, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner has challenged Ext.P4 under the KCS (CC & A) Rules. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Exts.P2, P4, P5 and W.P.(C).27390/2007 3 P6 orders. Petitioner has sought for other incidental reliefs also. 3. Statement has been filed on behalf of the second respondent as directed by this Court. It is mentioned therein that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner only as per Ext.P2 memo of charges. What took place prior to Ext.P1 was only a preliminary enquiry. Disciplinary proceedings were finalised as per Ext.P4 order dated 29.3.2007. It was not finalised prior to Ext.P1 as contended by the petitioner. There are no grounds to interfere with the orders impugned in the writ petition. 4. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned senior Government Pleader. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner was suspended on 21.11.2003, he was reinstated even prior to Ext.P1 order and it is W.P.(C).27390/2007 4 therefore by Ext.P1, the period of suspension is decided to be regularized. This will show that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner were actually finalized prior to Ext.P1. Reference is made in this regard to the notings in the files, collected by the petitioner by recourse to the provisions of the Right to Information Act (Ext.P7). It is further contended that since the period of suspension was directed to be treated as eligible leave, the initiation of disciplinary proceedings by issuance of Ext.P2 memo of charges is illegal. Consequently, the order of censure is also illegal. 6. I am of the view that the petitioner is misconceived in proceeding on the premise that the disciplinary proceedings, as regards the petitioner arising from the incident which took place in the Laproscopic Training Camp conducted between 11.11.2003 to 24.11.2003 in the District hospital, Palakkad, came to be finalized prior to the issuance of Ext.P1 order. This is not so. In W.P.(C).27390/2007 5 fact reference to Ext.P10 preliminary report of the then Additional Director of Health Services will show that the recommendation for reinstatement in service, was pending disciplinary action. Obviously they were reinstated in service accepting the recommendation in Ext.P1. May be the disciplinary proceedings should have been initiated, in the sense that the memo of charges should have been issued without further delay but it actually came to be issued only under Ext.P2 dated 4.1.2007. That does not mean that under Ext.P2, fresh disciplinary proceedings came to be initiated after it was finalized earlier. 7. The manner in which period of suspension is to be treated pending disciplinary proceedings, is governed by Rule 56 (b) of Part I of KSR. Ext.P1 can only be treated as an order passed by the Government or the competent authority under Rule 56(b). Disciplinary proceedings came to be finalised only under Ext.P4 order. Ext.P5 which is the final order dealing with the manner in which W.P.(C).27390/2007 6 petitioner's period of suspension is to be regularised happens to be similar to Ext.P1. Petitioner challenged it by Ext.P5 before the Government. Same has been confirmed in view of the fact that the punishment ordered is only censure. There is no complete exoneration of the petitioner. I do not find any error in Ext.P5 or Ext.P6. I do not find any grounds to interfere with the same. 8. In so far as the order of punishment, Ext.P4, is concerned, it is open to the petitioner to challenge the same in appeal if so advised. If the petitioner is completely exonerated, then the treatment of the period when the petitioner was placed under suspension will naturally be subject to any decision the Government may take in that regard. 9. Now that the punishment imposed on the petitioner under Ext.P4 is only awarding of censure, there is nothing which stands in the way of the W.P.(C).27390/2007 7 petitioner's probation in the post of Junior Health Inspector Grade-II being declared. Second respondent may take appropriate steps to see that the petitioner's probation is declared without further delay as such, in accordance with law. Subject to these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs