Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

Having been placed under suspension through Ext.P14 dated 18.06.2014 and having been called upon to submit an explanation to the charges framed in Ext. P15 Memo dated 14.07.2014, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.22233 of 2014 assailing the said order of suspension as well as the directive of her employer to the petitioner to submit an explanation. At an earlier point of time, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 19300 of 2014 seeking a host of reliefs, including that of continuing her in office despite the order of suspension. Today, both the matters have been taken up together for consideration and disposal. After making submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, sought leave of this Court to withdraw WP (C) No. 19300 of 2014. Accordingly, through a separate order, leave shall be granted. Now, the discussion shall be confined to WP (C) No. 22233 of 2014 alone.

THE SCOPE OF WRIT PETITION:

2. Since the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-employer has raised strenuous objections with regard to the very maintainability of the writ petition, this Court proposes to examine the issue of maintainability of the writ petition before going into the merits of the matter, if necessary. This Court has, therefore, required both the learned counsel to confine their submissions to the question of maintainability, with a view that if the court is satisfied that the matter requires consideration, it could proceed further to hear the matter on merits. Accordingly, both the learned counsel have made their submissions on the issue of maintainability alone.

FACTS:

3. The facts in brief are that the petitioner entered into the service of the 2nd respondent as Accountant on probation on 19.04.1999 and was later admitted in to the regular service on 01.02.2000. In the year 2006, the petitioner was promoted as Accounts Officer, and later in 2011, as a Finance Officer.

4. While the petitioner was discharging her duties as finance officer, she was placed under suspension through Ext.P14 and was further called upon to submit her explanation to the charges framed against her through Ext.P15.

5. Having filed the writ petition, the petitioner arrayed the 3rd respondent, the Executive Director of the 2nd respondent Foundation, as a respondent eonominee. Essentially, the petitioner's case is that while she was discharging her duties as an Audit Officer, she examined the Regional Branch under the stewardship of the 3rd respondent, who then was the Regional Director. In the audit report, the petitioner was constrained to make certain adverse observations against the performance of the 3rd respondent. Though the 2nd respondent, based on the audit report submitted by the petitioner, conducted an enquiry and found against the 3rd respondent on most counts, in view of the change in management, no action was taken against the 3rd respondent. Under those circumstances, the 3rd respondent nursed a grudge against the petitioner and continued to, harass her. It appears that it has resulted in two crimes having been registered against the 3rd respondent at the behest of the petitioner. Further, the petitioner also filed W.P. (C) No. 10777 of 2014, in the manner of quo warranto, questioning the very legality of the 3rd respondent's continuing as Executive Director, despite his superannuation in March, 2014. These facts have been stated solely for the purpose of supplying the supposed motive behind the entire allegations.

6. This backdrop, as has been averred by the petitioner, assumes importance, since the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was placed under suspension by the 3rd respondent in his capacity as Executive Director only as a matter of personal vendetta.

Petitioner's Submissions:

7. Be that as it may, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, who vehemently questioned the maintainability of the writ petition, has supplied the specifics concerning the legal status of the 2nd respondent,