IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2008 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1930 WA.No. 2037 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.3614/1998 DATED 26/05/2006 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER: --------------------------------------------- K.CHIRUKANDAN, S/O.C.AMBADI, AGED 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHAPPOYIL HOUSE, SIVAPURAM PALLIKKARA, P.O.NILESWAR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO HEALTH DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH, KANHANGAD. SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BENNY GERVACIS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss J.B.KOSHY & K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------- W.A.NO.2037 OF 2008 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T KOSHY,J. A crime was registered against the appellant as Crime No.214/1994 for offence of atrocity against a harijan girl. He was placed under suspension in criminal proceedings. No departmental proceedings were taken against him. Finally he was acquitted and reinstated in service. The disciplinary authorities ordered that the period appellant was under suspension can be treated as period under leave. The period of suspension was about two years. Appellant wants the above period to be treated as service with salary as if he was not suspended from service. It is the case of the appellant that the complainant himself did not support the case of prosecution in criminal proceedings. According to him, the allegations were fradulently raised by the girl against him at the instigation of some others and she came before the court W.A.2037/08 2 and deposed against the allegations mentioned in the charge sheet. The learned Sessions Judge found that even though there are some evidence which would have corroborated the Prosecutrix's version, since she herself became hostile to the prosecution deposed in favour of the accused, it was held that the case was not proved beyond doubt. In any event, accused was entitled to the benefit of doubt. In the above circumstances, it is contended that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Rule 18 of the Kerala Civil Services (C,C & A.) Rules, 1960. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader submits that as the appellant was only given the benefit of doubt, it is for the authorities to decide the matter in view of Rule 56B of the Kerala Service Rules. On going through the final order passed by the Government (Ext.P6), we note that it was passed without giving an opportunity to the appellant for hearing. In the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the appellant ought to have been heard in the matter. Hence, we set aside Ext.P6 order and direct the 2nd respondent to give an opportunity for hearing the appellant with a copy of this judgment and the matter regarding the W.A.2037/08 3 benefits to be given during the suspension period should be reconsidered by the authorities according to law untrammeled by the observations of the judgment of the Learned Single Judge. The judgment of the Learned Single Judge is set aside and we leave the matter for fresh consideration before the authorities. Appeal is accordingly allowed to the above extent. J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE prp J.B.KOSHY & K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO. OF 2006 () --------------------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T --------------------------------------------------------- 14th October, 2008