B.S.CHANDY versus THE STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

B.S.CHANDY v. THE STATE OF KERALA - WP(C) No. 36042 of 2003(N) [2007] RD-KL 14245 (27 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 36042 of 2003(N)

1. B.S.CHANDY,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent

2. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,

3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

4. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

5. ASSISTANT ENGINEER,

For Petitioner :DR.K.P.KYLASANATHA PILLAY

For Respondent :SRI.BABU VARGHESE, SC, KWA

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

Dated :27/07/2007

O R D E R

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

W.P(C).No.36042 OF 2003

Dated this the 27th day of July, 2007

JUDGMENT

This is a matter relating to imposition of punishment of barring of two increments with cumulative effect. The specific contention of the petitioner is that he was not given appropriate opportunity to cross examine the witnesses before concluding the enquiry. It is argued that Rule 15 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1960, which applies, has not been appropriately followed and therefore, the imposition of penalty is bad. Reliance is placed on the decision reported in Sahadevan v. State of Kerala [1997 (2) KLT 150] rendered following the decision of the Apex Court in Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab [1991 Supp.(1) SCC 504]. As of now, the issue of imposition of the punishment in question can be considered by the competent appellate authority within the Water Authority because the impugned order is passed by the Executive Engineer.  WPC.36042/03 Page numbers

2. Having regard to the time lag, this writ petition is disposed of directing that if the petitioner files an appeal against the impugned decision, before the Managing Director of the Water Authority, the same shall be considered after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and a final decision shall be taken, adverting to and considering all the contentions raised by him. The petitioner also appears to have a request to the Water Authority to consider posting him in Aruvikkara. Such question would also gain the attention of the Manging Director. A final decision shall be taken on the aforesaid within an outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of the appeal or a copy of this judgment, whichever is later, provided such appeal filed within an outer limit of one month from today.

3. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. The petitioner is directed to produce a copy of this judgment before the Managing Director, Kerala Water Authority, for compliance.  WPC.36042/03 Page numbers Before parting with this case, it has to be noted that in spite of a direction on 5.4.2004 that counter affidavit be filed in this case, no such counter affidavit has been placed on record and there is no appearance today, for the Water Authority. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge kkb. 

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.