Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

R. RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR versus STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


R. RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR v. STATE OF KERALA - WP(C) No. 2598 of 2007(H) [2007] RD-KL 2950 (8 February 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 2598 of 2007(H)

1. R. RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent

2. DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS,

3. SECRETARY,

4. NEDUMANGADU MUNICIPALITY,

For Petitioner :SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY

For Respondent :SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.K.DENESAN

Dated :08/02/2007

O R D E R

K.K. DENESAN, J.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 2598 OF 2007 H = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Dated this the 8th February, 2007



J U D G M E N T

The petitioner while working as Building Inspector in Nedumangadu Municipality was served with Ext. P1 order dated 16-1-2007 passed by the 3rd respondent- Secretary of the Municipality. The main contention urged by the petitioner against Ext. P1 is that the 3rd respondent has no authority to pass an order placing the petitioner under suspension.

2. In the counter affidavit sworn to by the 3rd respondent it is stated that the Chairman of the Municipality was aware of the fact that the petitioner shall be placed under suspension and since he was out of station he himself could not pass the order, and therefore, the 3rd respondent has passed Ext. P1 as instructed by the Chairman. Subsequently, the Chairman as well as the Municipal Council has ratified the action of the 3rd respondent in passing Ext. P1 order.

3. Heard both sides.

4. In my opinion, the reasons stated in the WPC No. 2598/2007 -2- counter affidavit of the 3rd respondent, even if factually true, will not save Ext. P1 order from being set aside by this Court, because this Court, after examining the whole scheme of the Act has held in Pradeep Kumar v. State of Kerala (2005 (4) KLT 396), that the Secretary of a Municipality is incompetent to place the officers/employees of the Municipality under suspension.

5. Ext. P1 is therefore set aside as one passed without jurisdiction. The petitioner shall therefore be deemed to have been in service treating Ext. P1 as nonest. I make it clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of the appropriate authority from taking appropriate action in accordance with law, if found necessary. The writ petition is allowed of as above. K.K. DENESAN

JUDGE

jan/


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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.