IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 24TH OCTOBER 2008 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 29664 of 2008(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- A.P.RAMACHANDRAN, CASHIER (UNDER SUSPENSION), K.S.E.B ELECTRICAL SECTION, VAZHAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.K.I.SAGEER RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, K.S.E.B ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PERUMBAVOOR. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.B., ELECTRICAL DIVISION, PERUMBAVOOR. 4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, K.S.E.B. ELECTRICAL SECTION, VAZHAKULAM, MUDICKAL P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM) K.S.E.B. VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SRI.K.S.ANIL, STANDING COUNSEL FOR KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. =============== W.P.(C).No.29664 of 2008 - F =============================== Dated this the 24th day of October, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner, a cashier in the service of the Kerala State Electricity Board was placed under suspension by Ext.P4(a) order dated 4.3.2008. Thereafter, Ext.P4(b) memo of charges and statement of allegations was also served on him. The petitioner moved for revocation of the order of suspension and thereafter filed W.P.(C).No.21003 of 2008. By Ext.P6 judgment delivered on 11.7.2008, this Court directed the Deputy Chief Engineer to consider the request made by the petitioner for revocation of suspension within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. As directed therein, the Deputy Chief Engineer considered the petitioner's request and passed Ext.P7 order wherein it is mentioned that the representation referred to in Ext.P6 judgment has not been received by him till date. By Ext.P7, the petitioner was directed to submit a request through proper channel to the Chief Engineer, (HRM), the competent authority empowered to review orders placing cashiers on W.P.(C).No.29664 of 2008 - F 2 suspension. The petitioner submits that he has thereupon submitted Ext.P8 reply to the memo of charges and Ext.P9 representation to the fifth respondent seeking reinstatement in service, after revoking the order of suspension. In this writ petition, the petitioner prays for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the fifth respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P9 and also for a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to reinstate him in service forthwith, pending finalisation of the disciplinary proceedings initiated as per Ext.P4(b) memo of charges. 2. The petitioner was placed under suspension for financial irregularities. It was only on 3.9.2008 that he filed his written statement of defence. When he moved this Court on the earlier occasion he had not moved the authorities for revocation of suspension and had also not filed his written statement of defence. This is discernible from Ext.P7 order passed by the second respondent. It was only after Ext.P7 order was passed that the petitioner filed the written statement of defence and moved the fifth respondent for revocation of suspension. W.P.(C).No.29664 of 2008 - F 3 Whether having regard to the allegations levelled against him, the petitioner can be reinstated in service, is essentially a matter for the fifth respondent to decide. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the contentions put forward by the petitioner, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the fifth respondent to consider Ext.P9 representation and pass orders thereon, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. This shall be done within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-