Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

P.M.ABDUL SAMAD, DEPUTY DIRECTOR (QIP) versus STATE OF KERAL REPRESENTED BY THE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


P.M.ABDUL SAMAD, DEPUTY DIRECTOR (QIP) v. STATE OF KERAL REPRESENTED BY THE - WP(C) No. 11001 of 2004(I) [2007] RD-KL 3905 (21 February 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 11001 of 2004(I)

1. P.M.ABDUL SAMAD, DEPUTY DIRECTOR (QIP),
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERAL REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,

3. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E)/AUDIT),

For Petitioner :SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR (PANAMPALLI NAGAR)

For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH

Dated :21/02/2007

O R D E R

KURIAN JOSEPH, J.

W.P.(C) No.11001 of 2004 Dated 21st February, 2007.

J U D G M E N T

The challenge is on Ext.P6 Government Order dated 21.11.2003, to the extent it treats the period of suspension of the petitioner as eligible leave. The period of suspension is from 3.10.2002 to 21.7.2003. As per Ext.P6, taking note of the appreciable conduct on the part of the petitioner, the proposed disciplinary action has been dropped. However, the period of suspension was directed to be treated as eligible leave. Except for the statement that "the period of suspension will be treated as eligible leave", there is no consideration as to why the period is not treated as duty, despite the appreciable conduct of the petitioner. That apart, according to the petitioner, as per Ext.P11 Government Order dated 25.6.2001, the petitioner had been completely exonerated of the charges levelled against him. Thus it is fairly clear that there is no proper application of mind with regard to the exercise of power under Rule 56 of Part III K.S.R. with regard to the regularisation of the suspension period. I quash Ext.P6 to the extent of the regularisation of the suspension WP NO.11001/04 2 period with a direction to the Government to consider the matter afresh with notice to the petitioner, on proper application of mind on all relevant aspects and to pass appropriate orders within three months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above.

KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE.

tgs

KURIAN JOSEPH, J

W.P.(C)No. of 2002

J U D G M E N T

Dated 21st February, 2007.


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.