ANTONY DOMINIC , J.
The petitioner was a Head Clerk in the Keralassery Grama Panchayat. By Annexure A1 order, he was placed under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary action. Subsequently, memo of charges were also served on the petitioner. Later, he applied for review of the order of suspension. When the application was not considered, he approached the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in O.A.1234/2012. That OA was disposed of by the Tribunal by its order dated 9.7.2012, requiring the 2nd respondent to consider the representation filed by the petitioner. Accordingly, his request was considered and Annexure A19 order was issued, extending the period of suspension.
2. Challenging the order, the petitioner filed O.A.No.2221/2012 before the Tribunal. By Exhibit P2 order dated 20.8.2013, the Tribunal dismissed the OA. It is challenging Exhibit P2 order, this Original Petition is filed.
OPKAT.NO.4119/2013 -2-
3. In this Original Petition, after hearing both sides, this Court passed order dated 02.4.2014, which reads thus:
“ Admitted. Learned Govt. Pleader takes notice for the respondents.
After hearing the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, on the contents of Annexure-A19 in Ext.P1, we wanted the learned Govt.Pleader to ascertain as to what is the vigilance case against the petitioner. Today, it is submitted that there is no vigilance case against the petitioner. We have seen the memo of charges. Initial order of suspension was not on a ground referable to the said disciplinary proceedings. On the totality of the facts and circumstances, we do not see any reason to let the order of suspension continue to operate. Therefore, suspension of the petitioner from service is hereby stayed and it is ordered that the petitioner will be readmitted to duty forthwith subject to further orders in this case.”
In pursuance of the above order, the petitioner was reinstated in service. In view of the above development, we do not think that there is any justification in disturbing the status quo as it obtains today. This is all the more so, because the disciplinary enquiry ordered against the petitioner is completed and the report is also OPKAT.NO.4119/2013 -3-
submitted.
In such circumstances, we dispose of this Original Petition without prejudice to the right of the disciplinary authority to take appropriate action in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner and also without prejudice to the proceedings in the criminal case that is registered against the petitioner.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE dsn Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE