Binoy Ninan vs The Chairman And Managing ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1634 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

     FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 25TH POUSHA, 1942

                       WP(C).No.27763 OF 2020(U)


PETITIONER:

               BINOY NINAN,
               AGED 42 YEARS
               S/O N.S NINAN,
               KAYYALACKAKATHU, ELLUMPURAM P O, MUTTOM VILLAGE,
               THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685587
               (ON DEPUTATION FROM CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPT TO SUPPLYCO)

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.G.SANTHOSH KUMAR (P).
               SRI.V.R.SASSIDHARAN

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
               KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD,
               MAVELI BHAVAN,
               P.B NO. 2030, GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI, PIN-682020.

      2        THE ADDITIONAL GENERAL MANAGER
               PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATION, SUPPLYCO, GANDHI NAGAR,
               KOCHI, PIN-682020.

      3        THE REGIONAL MANAGER
               KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD, MAVELI
               TOWER, THIRUVANAKKARA, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686001.

      4        THE DEPOT MANAGER
               SUPPLYCO TALUK DEPOT, PALA, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686575.

               R1-2 BY ADV. SMT.P.R.REENA

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.27763 OF 2020(U)

                               2

                          JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P5 order of

suspension. The main ground on which the challenge is

mounted is that the petitioner is the Government employee

and has been deputed to the Supplyco and the author of

Ext.P5 does not have jurisdiction to place him under

suspension.

2. I find that the authority to which the services of a

Government employee is lent has powers under Rule 19 of

the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal)

Rules, 1960 to place such employee under suspension, and

to initiate disciplinary proceedings where found necessary.

3. The learned Government Pleader, who was

requested to assist the Court as also informed the Court that

there are Government orders issued with regard to the

power of the appropriate authorities in the Supplyco to place

officers on deputation under suspension. WP(C).No.27763 OF 2020(U)

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the factual aspects, which formed on the basis of Ext.P5

order of suspension, are erroneous and that there is no

shortage of rice as alleged in Ext.P5. It is submitted that the

petitioner has preferred Ext.P6 representation before the 1 st

respondent seeking revocation of the suspension. It is

submitted that the specific factual aspects of the matter

have been placed before the 1st respondent in Ext.P6.

5. Having heard the learned Standing Counsel also, I

am of the opinion that since the petitioner has already

approached the 1st respondent with a request for revocation

of the order of suspension, the same is liable to be

considered in accordance with law.

6. In the above view of the matter, there will be a

direction to the 1st respondent to take up, consider and pass

orders on Ext.P6 representation preferred by the petitioner

seeking revocation of suspension with notice to the

petitioner as well. The petitioner can be heard by any

appropriate means including through video conferencing. WP(C).No.27763 OF 2020(U)

Orders shall be passed within a period of one month from

the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE Bng/16.01.2021 WP(C).No.27763 OF 2020(U)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO E1-

3804/14 DATED 04.05.2018 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO S 4-26/18 DATED 04.05.2018 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 27.11.2020.

EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO D-22-

34325/20 DATED 02.12.2020 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT NO.E1-2436/19 DATED 03.12.2020.

EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 08/12/2020.

EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING BEARING NO.TII-3119/17 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 23.07.19.