T.B. PRADEEP CHAINMAN (UNDER SUSPENSION) ZONAL OFFICE v. THE KOLLAM CORPORATION

WP(C) NO. 14981/2009-PAPPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE MEMO NO.G8-1154/08 DATED 17/01/2009.EXT.P2: COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER NO.G8/1154/09 DATED 02/02/2009.EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION ON 23/03/2009 TO BE 1ST RESPONDENT.EXT.P4: COPY OF THE APPEAL UNDER RULE 22 OF THE KCS (CC & A) RULES 1960 ON23/05/2009.EXT.P4: COPY OF THE CMP NO.56/07 IN O.P. NO. 530/06 IN ORDER DATED 31/10/2007.EXT.P5: COPY OF THE WP(C) NO. 908/06 AGAINST THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ANDKOLLAM CORPORATION, WHICH WAS DISPOSED OF BY JUDGMENT DATED 11/01/2006.EXT.P6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10/01/2007 IN WP(C) NO. 1115/2007 G.EXT.P7: COPY OF THE APPEAL NO.111/07 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WHICH WASALLOWED BY ORDER DATED 21/06/2007.RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. P.N.RAVINDRAN,J.----------------------------------------W.P.(C) No. 14981 of 2009 - P ----------------------------------------Dated 18th August, 2009 Judgment Heard Sri.M.V.Thamban, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.M.K.Chandra Mohan Das, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 3 and Sri. Antony Mukkath, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent.

The petitioner, a Chainman employed in the KollamCorporation has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P2 order dated 2.2.2009 passed by the Secretary of Kollam Corporationplacing him under suspension. The petitioner challenges Ext.P2 on various grounds. When this writ petition came up for hearing on9.7.2009, this Court held that prima facie the order placing the petitioner under suspension was not warranted. The KollamCorporation was accordingly directed to reinstate the petitioner in service without prejudice to the right of the Corporation to continue the disciplinary action initiated against him. Accordingly, the petitioner was reinstated in service.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends relying on the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.14981/2009 2Pramod Kumar v. State of Kerala (2005 (4) KLT 396) that the Secretary of a Municipality or a Corporation has no power or authority to place employees of the Municipality or the Corporationunder suspension and that Ext.P1 order is liable to set aside. Alearned single Judge of this Court has Pramod Kumar v. State of Kerala (supra), after an elaborate analysis of the various provisions of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 and the Municipal CommonService Rules held that the Secretary of a Municipality or aCorporation is not competent to place employees under suspension. It was held that the authority competent to place employees of aMunicipality under suspension is the Chairperson in exercise of the power conferred on him under section 15 of the Kerala MunicipalityAct.

In the instance case, it is not in dispute that Ext.P2 order placing the petitioner under suspension was passed by the Secretary of the Kollam Corporation. In the light of the decision of this Court in Pramod Kumar v. State of Kerala (supra), the said order cannot be sustained as it is one passed by an incompetent officer. I accordingly allow this writ petition and quash Ext.P2.Since the petitioner has already been reinstated in service pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, no further direction is W.P.(C) No.14981/2009 3required to reinstate him in service. However, it is clarified that nothing said in this judgment will stand in the way of the competent disciplinary authority from proceeding with the disciplinary action initiated against the petitioner. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judgeapp/vaa