Kerala High Court
K.Sabitha vs State Of Kerala on 15 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 14058 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
K.SABITHA
AGED 49 YEARS
CLUSTER CO-ORDINATOR, URBAN RESOURCE CENTRE,
NADAKKAVU, KOZHIKODE
BY ADVS.
K.JAJU BABU (SR.)
M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI
BRIJESH MOHAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 573.
3 THE MANAGER,
PILASSERY AIDED UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL,
KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 571.
BIJOY CHANDRAN SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 14058 OF 2021 2
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction, calling for the records leading to
Exts.P3 and P4 and quash the same.
or in the alternative
st
Direct the 1 respondent to consider and pass orders on
Ext.P5 revision petition after affording an opportunity
of hearing to the petitioner.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Government Pleader.
3. It is submitted that the petitioner had been placed under
suspension by order dated 15.11.2011 and disciplinary proceedings had
been taken against her. It is submitted that the Government had
directed the Manager to reinstate the petitioner in service rejecting the
proposal for imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement. It is
submitted that thereafter, by Ext.P2 judgment, the Division Bench
found that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner
must be seen as having been concluded in her favour on account of her
reinstatement as BRC Cluster Co-ordinator. The Manager was therefore
directed to pass consequential orders regularising the period of
suspension undergone by the petitioner.
4. It is submitted that Ext.P3 order is passed treating the period of
suspension as eligible leave. Though the petitioner took up the matter
in appeal, the same was confirmed by Ext.P4 order. The petitioner has
preferred Ext.P5 revision petition before the 1 st respondent seeking
regularisation of the period of suspension undergone by her as duty, in
view of the fact that the proceedings have been concluded in her
favour.
Having heard the learned Government Pleader also, I am of the
opinion that it is for the Government to take an appropriate decision on
Ext.P5 revision petition preferred by the petitioner. There will,
accordingly, be a direction to the 1st respondent to take up, consider
and pass orders on Ext.P5 revision petition preferred by the petitioner
with notice to the petitioner as well as the 3 rd respondent and after
hearing them through any appropriate means, including by video
conferencing. Orders shall be passed within a period of two months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
This writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
ANU SIVARAMAN
JUDGE
SVP
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14058/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.8.2019
IN WPC NO 35734/2018(N) OF THIS HONBLE
COURT
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
17.,2.2021IN WA NO 85/2020 OF THIS HONBLE
COURT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO 02/2011-12 DATED
15.3.2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO
THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO C/2454/2018
DATED 22.4.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED
18.6.2021 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS WITHOUT
ANNXURES
