IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2010 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 11920 of 2010(L) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: --------------- C.A.VINCENT, DISTRICT FOOD INSPECTOR MALAPPURAM (UNDER ORDERS OF REMOVAL FROM SERVICE) CHERUPUSHPA VILAS, MULLILAVUVILA, KUDAYAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN SMT.RESMI G. NAIR RESPONDENT: ---------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH & FAMILY DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: pkk C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C) No. 11920 OF 2010 ------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL 2010 JUDGMENT ----------------- While working as District Food Inspector, Malappuram, disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner as per Memo of Charges dated 9.6.2006. Continuous absence before Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Chavakkad on all posting days of C.C No. 479/2000 and C.C 47/2001 for conducting cases under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is the allegation levelled against him. During the pendency of the said proceedings, he was issued with another Memo of Charges dated 19.12.2007. The allegation therein is with respect to unauthorized absence, misconduct and dereliction of duty. The disciplinary proceedings thus initiated against the petitioner ultimately culminated in his removal from service. Against the order of removal 5.2.2009, the petitioner has preferred a statutory appeal (Ext P1). Since Ext.P1 is a statutory appeal preferred before the respondent, the respondent is bound to consider and pass orders W.P.(C) No. 11920 OF 2010 2 thereon. Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P1 statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner against removal from service expeditiously, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Considering the fact that the punishment is removal from service, the petitioner shall also be afforded with an opportunity of being heard before passing orders on Ext. P1 by the respondent. C.T. RAVIKUMAR JUDGE pkk