IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 25TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 27827 of 2010(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.KRISHNAKUMAR, U.D.CLERK, UNDER SUSPENSION, KOLLAM CORPORATION, RESIDING AT GREEN GATE, OLAYIL, THEVALLY.P.O. KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI. K.SIJU SRI.S.SUDHEESHKAR SRI.PRATHEESH.P RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KOLLAM CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. SECRETARY, KOLLAM CORPORATION, 3. DIRECTOR, URBAN AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT. PLEADER ARAVINDABABU.T.K. ADV.C.UNNIKRISHNAN, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 27827 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 16th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner, while working as a PW Clerk in the Kollam Corporation, was suspended from service pending enquiry, on 9.9.2009, by Ext.P2 order, issued by the 2nd respondent-Secretary of the Kollam Corporation. The petitioner is challenging the said suspension. The contention of the petitioner is that as held by this Court in Kumar v. State of Kerala [2005 (4) KLT 396], the Secretary of the Corporation does not have powers to suspend the petitioner. 2. In answer to the same, the learned standing counsel for the Corporation points out that what is prohibited in the above said decision is the suspension order passed by the Secretary on his own, without reference to the Corporation. According to the learned standing counsel, in this case, the petitioner has been suspended by the Secretary as per orders of the Mayor and, therefore, the petitioner cannot now take a stand that because of the said decision the petitioner's suspension by the Secretary of the Corporation, is unsustainable. When confronted with this contention of the learned standing counsel, the petitioner confines his relief for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to complete the disciplinary proceedings initiated by his suspension, expeditiously. 2 3. Having heard both sides, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to complete the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, by Ext.P2 suspension order, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge