Kerala High Court
P.N.Hena vs The State Of Kerala on 29 January, 2011
Author: P.R.Ramachandra Menon
Bench: P.R.Ramachandra Menon
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/2ND ASWINA 1934
WP(C).No. 20854 of 2012 (F)
---------------------------
PETITIONER:
==========
P.N.HENA, AGED 34 YEARS
MANAGING DIRECTOR (UNDER SUSPENSION)
KERALA ARTISANS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE ROAD, VANCHIYOOR P.O.
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695035,
RESIDING AT ISWARYA, CRA NO.28,
POTTAKUZHI, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.
BY ADVS.SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.)
SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR
SMT.HENA BAHULEYAN
RESPONDENTS:
===========
1. THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIES (K) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2. KERALA ARTISANS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED (KADCO)
REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR IN CHARGE
GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE ROAD, VANCHIYOOR P.O.
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695035.
3. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, EAST FORT
TRIVANDRUM-695023.
4. RAMADASAN ACHARI
KUNNUMEL HOUSE, IRINGAL P.O., VADAKARA
CALICUT-673521.
5. K.JAYKRISHNAN
REGIONAL OFFICER
KERALA ARTISANS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED
REGIONAL OFFICE, CALICUT-673001.
BY SMT.M.J RAJASREE
BY SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA,SC,KSRTC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JV
WP(C).No. 20854 of 2012 (F)
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
======================
EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO GO(RT)NO 1225/10/ID DTD 28/8/2010
ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO GO (RT)NO 148/2011 ID ISSUED
DATED 29.01.2011 BY THE GOVERNMENT TO PETITIONER.
EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD 19/7/2012 SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER TO THE PRIVATE SECRERTARY TO THE
HON'BLE MINISTER FOR INDUSTRIES & IT , GOVERNMENT OF
KERALA
EXT.P3(A) : COPY OF THE DETAILS OF PERFORMACE SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER.
EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER GO(RT)NO 1162/2012/ID DTD
01/08/2012 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT
EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD 10/8/2012 SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT
EXT.P5(A) : COPY OF THE RELEVANT DOCUMENT R.SASI
EXT.P5(B) : COPY OF THE RELEVANT DOCUMENT DTD 09/04/2011 M/S.MAHIM
WOOD INDUSTRIES
EXT.P5(C) : COPY OF THE RELEVANT DOCUMENT DTD 30/6/2012 ISSUED BY
THE MAHIN WOOD INDUSTRIES , TO THE SECRETARY, RIAB,
TRIVANDRUM
EXT.P5(D) : COPY OF THE RELEVANT DOCUMENT NO.KADCO/CRO/11 ISSUED
DATED 10.10.2011 BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE REGIONAL
OFFICER, CENTRAL REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM
EXT.P5(E) : COPY OF THE RELEVANT DOCUMENT DTD 31/8/2011 ISSUED BY
THE REGIONAL OFFICER,
EXT.P5(F) : COPY OF THE RELEVANT DOCUMENT NO KADCO/ACCOUNTS/2011
DTD 20/8/2011
EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD 27/8/2012 SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: N I L
=====================
/TRUE COPY/
P.A. TO JUDGE
JV
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON,J.
----------------------------------------
W.P.(C).NO. 20854 of 2012 (F)
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of September, 2012
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of Ext.P4 order of suspension issued by the first respondent, pending disciplinary proceedings, in respect of some misconduct alleged against the petitioner.
2. The case of the petitioner is that, he was working as 'Legal Assistant' in the 3rd respondent KSRTC and while so, the first respondent/Government, as per Ext.P1 order dated 28.08.2010, appointed the petitioner on deputation as the 'Managing Director' of the second respondent Corporation for a period of two years. Before the tenure came to an end, the petitioner was suspended from service on flimsy charges as per Ext.P4 order dated 01.08.2012, issued by the first respondent. The petitioner is challenging the said order mainly contending that the first respondent does not have power, jurisdiction or competence to place the petitioner under suspension, more so, when the tenure of deputation has come to an end on 03.09.2012. The learned Counsel also submits that, though the 2 W.P.(C).NO. 20854 of 2012 (F) petitioner has filed an application before the first respondent for extension of deputation, the same is still to be dealt with. There is also a grievance, that the petitioner is entitled to have 'substance allowance' during the period of suspension and in spite of filing an application in this regard, the same has been left in cold storage. The learned Counsel further submits that the suspension of an employee from the service is not automatic and may be warranted only under such circumstance, where there is a chance for influencing the witnesses or attempt to tamper with the evidence. In the case of the petitioner, the tenure of deputation has come to an end and as such, there is no requirement to keep the petitioner under suspension and that the petitioner is liable to be sent back to the third respondent Corporation. Reliance is also sought to be placed on the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court reported in Surendran K. vs. Government of Kerala [ILR 2008(3) Kerala 587] explaining the scope of suspension.
3. Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the third respondent and so also the learned Government Pleader for 3 W.P.(C).NO. 20854 of 2012 (F) the first respondent. In view of the relief proposed to be given, this Court does not find it necessary to hear the second respondent; more so, when no relief is prayed for against the second respondent.
4. Going by the pleadings and materials on record, it is seen that the period of deputation of the petitioner has come to an end on 03.09.2012 and it has not been brought on record that the tenure has been extended further. This being the position, if it is not extended, the petitioner is to be sent back to the service of the 3rd respondent Corporation. This being the position, whether the suspension of the petitioner should be continued is definitely a matter to be looked into; more so, in view of the law declared in the decision in Surendran's case(cited supra). Further, it is the settled law, that any employee put under suspension is entitled to have the substance allowance, claiming which the petitioner has approached the first respondent by filing Ext.P6 representation. Cancellation of suspension is sought for as per Ext.P4, while, the petitioner has also sought for extension of deputation as per Ext.P3 representation dated 19.07.2012. All 4 W.P.(C).NO. 20854 of 2012 (F) these petitions are pending consideration before the first respondent. Taking note of the sequence of events, this Court finds that it is proper to direct the first respondent to consider these and pass appropriate orders. Accordingly, the first respondent is directed to pass final orders on Ext.P5 & P6 in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 'four weeks' from today.
5. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment, along with a copy of the writ petition, before the first respondent for further steps.
Writ petition is disposed of.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE JV