Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd., apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner having been subjected to disciplinary proceedings, was reverted to a lower post as a measure of punishment. Aggrieved thereby, he is said to have filed Ext.P12 appeal before the 2nd respondent. Complaining of the delay in its disposal by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
3. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents has submitted that Ext.P12 cannot be termed as a statutory appeal, inasmuch as there is no provision of appeal in the W.P.(C.) No. 32060/2014 -2-
service regulations governing the respondent Corporation.
4. Be that as it may, there is a representation pending before the 2nd respondent concerning the punishment inflicted on the petitioner. It meets the ends of justice if a direction is given to the 2nd respondent to consider it in accordance with law.
In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P12 representation/appeal of the petitioner in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible. No order as to costs.
sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.
rv W.P.(C.) No. 32060/2014 -3-