P.K.Vasudeva Panicker vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 20279 Ker

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 20279 Ker
Judgement Date : 30 September, 2021

Kerala High Court

P.K.Vasudeva Panicker vs State Of Kerala on 30 September, 2021

WP(C) NO. 9571 OF 2021           1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
   THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 8TH ASWINA, 1943
                     WP(C) NO. 9571 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:

          P.K.VASUDEVA PANICKER
          AGED 59 YEARS
          S/O. KESAVA PANICKER, KESAVALAYAM,
          ERUTHEMPATHY, CHITOOR, PALAKKAD.

          BY ADVS.
          LINDONS C.DAVIS
          SMT.E.U.DHANYA



RESPONDENT/S:

    1     STATE OF KERALA,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
          GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

    2     DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
          JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695014.

    3     DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
          DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICE, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678014.

    4     HEADMASTER
          SREEVIDHYA HIGH SCHOOL, ERUTHEMPATHY,
          PALAKKAD, PIN - 678555.

    5     MANIKANDAN, PEON
          SREEVIDHYA HIGH SCHOOL, ERUTHEMPATHY,
          PALAKKAD, PIN - 678555.

    6     SHIBINDAS
          FULL TIME MENIAL, SREEVIDHYA HIGH SCHOOL,
          ERUTHEMPATHY, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678555.
 WP(C) NO. 9571 OF 2021           2

    7     DISTRICT OFFICER
          KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
          DISTRICT OFFICE, PALAKKAD - 678 001.

          SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN, SR. GP




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 9571 OF 2021                      3

                                    JUDGMENT

The petitioner states that he had retired from the post of Clerk from

Sreevidhya High School, Eruthempathy, Palakkad District. He contends that while

working in the school, respondents 4 to 6 forged his signature and withdrew

certain allowances from the Kerala Public Service Commission. He contends that

he had preferred Ext.P6 before the 2nd respondent seeking action against the

party respondents. The 2nd respondent without appreciating the true nature of

allegations failed to initiate disciplinary action against the said respondents and

limited the action to a warning as is evident from Ext.P9. Being aggrieved, the

petitioner is stated to have preferred Ext.P10 revision petition before the 1st

respondent which is pending consideration. It is in the afore circumstances that

the petitioner is before this Court seeking directions.

2. Sri.Lindons C. Davis, the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner submitted that the limited request of the petitioner is for issuance of

directions to the 1st respondent to consider and pass expeditious orders on

Ext.P10 within a time frame.

3. I have heard the learned Government Pleader. In view of the

nature of the order that I propose to pass, notice to the party respondents are

dispensed with.

4. After having carefully evaluated the contentions raised in this writ

petition, the submissions made across the Bar and the facts and circumstances,

I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of by issuing the

following directions:

a) There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to take up, consider and

pass appropriate orders on Ext.P10, as per procedure and in

adherence to the provisions of law, after affording an opportunity of

being heard, either physically or virtually, to the petitioner herein or

his authorised representative as well as the party respondents.

b) Orders, as directed above, shall be passed expeditiously, in any event,

within a period of three months from the date of production of a

copy of this judgment.

c) It would be open to the petitioner to produce a copy of the writ

petition along with the judgment before the concerned respondent

for further action.