Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for respondents 2 to 4 as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent Corporation, 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, originally an employee of the second respondent, while on deputation in the first respondent Corporation, was placed under suspension through Exhibit P9 order passed by the second respondent, his employer. The first respondent Corporation, in turn, passed Exhibit P8 consequential order implementing the order of suspension. Since the petitioner has been under suspension for the past more than ten months, he submitted Exhibit P14 review petition dated 01.11.2014 seeking reinstatement by reviewing the order of suspension initially passed in Exhibit P9.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner, now on the verge of retirement, all along has had an exemplary track record. He has further submitted that while he was discharging his duties as District Supply Officer, Kollam, he had exposed many erring ration dealers and black marketeers, thus earning their wrath. According to the learned counsel, since the petitioner had been facing threats in the hands of those persons, he went on representing to the authorities concerned that he be transferred to some other district. The learned counsel has also contended that only as a matter of victimisation, certain vested interests planted evidence and subjected him to disciplinary proceedings as if an amount of Rupees One lakhs had been recovered from his lodgings by the Vigilance Department.
4. Urging this Court that the petitioner is only a victim of his own honesty, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks a direction to the second respondent to consider Exhibits P13 and P14 petitions at the earliest.
5. The learned Government Pleader, on his part, has submitted that the petitioner faces serious allegations and given the gravity of the misconduct alleged against him, the second respondent, after taking into account all factors, placed him under suspension through Exhibit P9, which was implemented by the first respondent by passing Exhibit P8 order. He has strenuously denied the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner has been victimised. At any rate, having said that there is no delay on the part of the authorities in considering Exhibits P13 and P14, the learned Government Pleader, however, submitted that the second respondent would consider the said petitions at the earliest, if it is legally permissible.
In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent Corporation, as well as the learned Government Pleader, this Court, without adverting to the merits of the matter, disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the second respondent to consider Exhibits P13 and P14 petitions of the petitioner, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If desired by the authorities, the petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with the copy of the judgment before the second respondent.
Dama Seshadri Naidu, Judge tkv