Ajith K. Thankachan vs Chief Engineer (Hrd And General)
2021 Latest Caselaw 2028 Ker

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                    PRESENT

                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

           TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 29TH POUSHA, 1942

                          WP(C).No.12834 OF 2020(D)


PETITIONER:

                AJITH K. THANKACHAN
                AJITH BHAVAN, YMCA VETTIKKARA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK,
                NOW R/AT CHERICKAL HOUSE, OLD BLOCK, MADAPPALLY,
                CHANGANASSERY (ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER
                AUTHORITY, PONKUNNAM SUB DIVISION).

                BY ADVS.
                SMT.T.S.MAYA (THIYADIL)
                SRI.P.Y.AHAMMED PHYSI

RESPONDENTS:

       1        CHIEF ENGINEER (HRD AND GENERAL)
                KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALA BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.

       2        EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
                P.H.DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM - 686 001.

       *ADDL     DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION
       R3       BUREAU, EAST RANGE, KOTTAYAM. PIN 686 001

                *(ADDL R3 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 19.01.2021   IN
                IA.NO.1/2021 IN W.P(C).NO.12834/2020.)

                BY ADV. SMT.MARY BENJEMIN
                BY SRI.P.BENJAMIN PAUL, SC

      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.01.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.12834 OF 2020(D)

                                    2




                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court impugning Ext.P3

order dated 26.02.2020, as per which, he has been placed under

suspension on the allegation that he had been trapped red handed

by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, while allegedly

accepting bribe from a person by name, Sri.Shony P. Joseph. The

petitioner says that the allegations made against him are

completely untenable and baseless and therefore, that Ext.P3

order could not have been issued adding that in spite of the fact

that it has been nearly one year after he was placed under

suspension, no charge sheet has been issued to him by the

competent Authority of the Kerala Water Authority.

2. Smt.T.S.Maya, learned counsel for the petitioner, in

addition to the above, submitted that her client has also

approached this Court by filing a Criminal Revision Petition, to

quash the case registered against him and therefore, that the

Kerala Water Authority cannot continue to retain her client under

suspension ad infinitum, as they are now presently doing. She,

therefore, prays that Ext.P3 be set aside and her client be allowed

to rejoin duty at the earliest.

WP(C).No.12834 OF 2020(D)

3. In response, the learned Standing Counsel for the

Kerala Water Authority - Sri.Benjamin Paul, submitted that the

competent Authority of his client had no other option but to

suspend the petitioner because, they were instructed to do by the

Government on account of the fact that he had been found

accepting a bribe and had, in fact, been remanded to judicial

custody for at least 15 days by the Criminal Court. He submitted

that since it has been nearly one year after Ext.P3 had been

issued, the Water Authority is in the process of reviewing the said

action, after obtaining necessary concurrence from the

Government and the Anti Corruption Bureau. He thus prayed that

this Court may allow the Water Authority to do so and that this

writ petition be ordered on such terms.

4. When I consider the afore submissions, it is indubitable

that even the petitioner has no case that he was not remanded by

the competent Criminal Court, based on the allegation made

against him that he was found accepting bribe from a person by

name, Sri.Shony P. Joseph. The question is not whether these

allegations are true or otherwise, but if the Water Authority was,

therefore, competent to suspend him. The applicable Rules and

Regulations covering the field certainly make it incumbent upon WP(C).No.12834 OF 2020(D)

the Water Authority to suspend the petitioner on the basis that he

has been remanded to judicial custody over 15 days and

therefore, I cannot find Ext.P3 to be in error.

5. That said, however, the surviving question is whether

Ext.P3 can be allowed to continue ad infinitum since the

petitioner has been kept under suspension for over 11 months as

of now.

6. I am, therefore, of the firm view that the competent

Committee/Authority of the respondent should review the

suspension ordered against the petitioner through Ext.P3 and

complete this process within the earliest point of time.

Resultantly, I order this writ petition and direct the

competent Committee of the Water Authority - stated to have

been constituted for the purpose of review of suspension of

employees - to do so in the case of the petitioner also and

complete such process after affording him an opportunity of being

heard - either physically or through video conferencing - as

expeditiously as is possible but not later than one month from the

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

SD/-

                                            DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

rp                                                     JUDGE
 WP(C).No.12834 OF 2020(D)






                                   APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
                           MANORAMA DAILY DATED 23/6/2002.

EXHIBIT P1(C)              THE COPY OF THE NEWS PUBLISHED IN THE HINDU DAILY
                           DATED 15/2/2006.

EXHIBIT P1(D)              THE COPY OF THE NEW PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHUMI
                           DAILY DATED 24/2/2006.

EXHIBIT P1(E)              THE COPY OF THE NEWS PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA
                           MANORAMA DAILY DATED 18/11/2004.

EXHIBIT P2                 TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R.NO.V.C.2/2020/ERK LODGED

BY VIGILENCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, EASTERN RANGE.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 26/2/2020.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT DATED 30/5/2020.