V.C. HARIDASAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.