IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2008 / 13TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 38278 of 2007(F) -------------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- SMT.C.SREEDEVI, HEALTH SUPERVISOR, CHALAKUDY MUNICIPALITY, CHALAKUDY. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH BABU RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE CHALAKUDY MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY THE MUNICIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, CHALAKUDY. 2. THE MUNICIPAL SECRETARY, CHALAKUDY MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, CHALAKUDY. BY SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.38278/2007 F APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 19/12/2007. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 24/12/2007. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss V. GIRI, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 38278 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of January,2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner while working as Health Supervisor in the Kerala Municipal Common Service was suspended under Ext.P1 order passed by the Secretary Municipality. The order of suspension has been challenged primarily on the ground that the same was issued without jurisdiction. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the Municipality. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a decision of this Court reported in Pradeep Kumar V. State of Kerala (2005(4) KLT 396 and contends that the Secretary of the Municipality has no power to suspend the petitioner. In the above decision this Court held as follows:- “Viewed from that angle, it is reasonable to think that the Legislature did not intend to confer on the Secretary the power to suspend the employees from service and that intention is reflected in S.49(1)(k) of the Act. Legislature has conferred the power to the Chairperson to suspend the employees by an express provision making its intention clear. A plain reading of S.49(1)(k) makes it clear that the power of the Secretary is confined to the act of taking disciplinary action and the same has to be done with WPC 38278/07 2 the knowledge of the Chairperson. S. 49(1)(k) does not say that the Secretary has got the power to suspend the employee from service. For reasons already stated above, the scheme of the Act discernible from the relevant provisions does not permit the conferment of an implied power on the Secretary. On the other hand it is reasonable to think that the Secretary who is empowered to take disciplinary action shall intimate the same to the Chairperson before he acts and the Chairperson on getting knowledge of that fact from the Secretary will be at liberty to decide as to what action he shall have to take.” By applying the dictum laid down in the above decision, I am of the view that the issue is covered in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, it is declared that the order of suspension is issued without jurisdiction. 3. Learned standing counsel submits that due to the conduct of the petitioner, subsequent to the issue of the order of suspension, disciplinary action has been initiated against her. The learned counsel points out that though the petitioner retired from service on 31-12- 2007, Muncipal Council decided to proceed with the disciplinary action against her. I have only considered the jurisdiction of the Secretary to suspend the petitioner from service. I have already declared that the order is issued without jurisdiction following the dictum laid down in Pradeep Kumar's case. WPC 38278/07 3 It is made clear that this judgment will not in any manner affect the disciplinary proceedings already initiated against the petitioner prior to her retirement on 31-12-2007. V. GIRI, JUDGE. mn.