Kerala High Court
Vidyavathy T.K vs The Dist. Tourism Promotion Council on 15 February, 2024
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 26TH MAGHA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 27264 OF 2013
PETITIONER:
VIDYAVATHY T.K.
AGED 47 YEARS
W/O.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,NORTH OF SREE KRISHNA SWAMY
TEMPLE,THIRUVAMPADY.P.O,ALAPPUZHA.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR
SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN
SMT.T.J.SEEMA
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT TOURISM PROMOTION COUNCIL
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,BOAT JETTY ROAD,
ALAPPUZHA-688001.
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,ALAPPUZHA-688001.
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO TOURISM
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI BIJOY CHANDRAN, SR GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 15.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.27264/2013
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.27264 of 2013
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of February, 2024
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed with following prayers:
i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction calling for the records
relating to Exhibit P9 and quash the same.
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction directing the
1st and 2nd respondents to reinstate the petitioner
in Service with effect from the date of suspension.
iii. Issue such other writ, order or direction which
this Honourable Court deems fit in the nature and
circumstances of the case.
(SIC)
2. This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P9 order
by which the petitioner was removed from service. The
petitioner was working as a Clerk employed with the 1 st
respondent institution. She was placed under suspension with
three other employees by order dated 25.02.2011 on the
ground that they caused financial loss to the 1 st respondent
institution. Consequently Ext.P9 order is passed. Aggrieved
by the same, this writ petition is filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Government Pleader.
4. After hearing both sides, I am of the considered
opinion that this Court need not consider the validity of
Ext.P9. The petitioner can be allowed to file an appeal against
Ext.P9 before the 3rd respondent and there can be a direction
to the 3rd respondent to consider the same in accordance with
law.
Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with following
directions:
1. The petitioner is free to challenge
Ext.P9 before the 3rd respondent within
one month from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment.
2. Once such an appeal/representation is
received, the 3rd respondent will
consider the same and pass appropriate
orders, after giving an opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner, as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate,
within four months from the date of
receipt of the appeal/representation
from the petitioner.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JV JUDGE
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27264/2013
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXT.P1 COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED
16.10.2004 PASSED BY THE IST
RESPONDENT.
EXT.P2 COPY OF THE COPY OF HE IDENTITY
CARD ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT
EXT.P3 COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED
BY THE EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE
CORPORATION.
EXT.P4 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE
BY THE PETITIONER ON 20.4.2005.
EXT.P5 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
25.2.2011 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT
EXT.P6 COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE
DATED 27.7.2011
EXT.P7 COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED
16.8.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P8 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS
HONOURABLE COURT IN W.P.(C)8777 OF 2013
DAED 31.5.2013.
EXT.P9 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE IST
RESPONDENT DATED 29.9.2013.
