S. Syam vs State Of Kerala

Devan Ramachandran, J

The petitioner impugns Ext.P21 order of the 2nd respondent – Managing Director of the Kerala Agro Industries Corporation Ltd, through which, his request - namely Ext.P20, for reinstating him in service, after revocation of his earlier order of suspension, has been rejected saying that an enquiry is pending against him.

Sri.B.Krishna Mani – learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argued that his client had earlier approached this Court to obtain Ext.P6 judgment, wherein, it has been clarified that if disciplinary enquiry against his client is delayed indefinitely,he can file a representation seeking reinstatement. He submitted that it is based on such liberty, that his client preferred Ext.P20 representation; but that it has been rejected through Ext.P21, merely saying that an Enquiry Officer has been posted and therefore, that a “smooth enquiry” is possible only if his suspension is extended. The learned counsel vehemently argued that Ext.P21 is illegal and contrary to the spirit of Ext.P6 judgment; and prayed that it be set aside.

In  response,  however,  Smt.Pooja  Menon  –  learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent, submitted that there has been no conscious effort from her client's side to delay the enquiry in any manner whatsoever, which is manifest from the fact that an Enquiry Officer has been appointed. She, however, conceded that, in Ext.P21, apart from saying that an Enquiry Officer has been posted no other reason has been given for extension of the period of suspension of the petitioner. She, therefore, prayed that if this Court is not inclined to accept Ext.P21, then liberty may be reserved to 2nd respondent to reconsider Ext.P20 in terms of law, but within a short time frame.

When I evaluate the afore submissions and examine Ext.P21 - which is the impugned order, as rightly argued by Sri.B.Krishna Mani, apart from merely saying that “vide reference above, Enquiry Officer was posted to conduct domestic enquiry” and “in order to facilitate the smooth enquiry, it is ordered that the period of suspension of Sri.Syam, Assistant Chargeman is extended for a further period of six months with effect from 21.04.2023” (sic), no other reasons have been stated therein as to why his request in Ext.P20 has been denied.

As stated above, the petitioner had preferred Ext.P20 based on the liberty reserved to him in Ext.P6 judgment; and indubitably therefore, it was upto the 2nd respondent to have considered it in its proper perspective, rather than have rejected it in the manner it has been done in Ext.P21, which, I am afraid is in a rather mechanical fashion.

This is more so because, even though the impugned order says that “vide reference above the Enquiry Officer was posted”, there are five different proceedings referred to therein and it is not possible for one to understand, which one is being relied upon.

In the afore circumstances, I allow this Writ Petition and set aside Ext.P21; with a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to reconsider Ext.P20 representation of the petitioner, adverting to all documents produced by him before this Court, specifically to Ext.P6 judgment, and after affording him an opportunity of being heard; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

In order to facilitate an expeditious compliance of the afore directions, I direct the petitioner to mark appearance before the 2nd  respondent at 11.00 A.M on 29.07.2023.