IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 632 of 2010(T)
1. PS AJITH PRASAD, SUPERINTENDENT,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE CORPORATION OF KOCHI,
For Petitioner :SRI.TOJAN J. VATHIKULAM
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :14/07/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
---------------------------
R.P. No. 632 of 2010
IN
W.P.(C) No. 15360 OF 2010
--------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of July, 2010
O R D E R
Referring to Annexure A and Annexure B produced in this
review petition, petitioner seeks review of the judgment in W.P.(C)
No.15360 of 2010. By the judgment Ext.P9 order of suspension,
which was challenged in the writ petition, was upheld by this Court.
In Annexure B, the petitioner sought information from the first
respondent as to who has directed to suspend him from service. It
is seen from Annexure A that the answer given is that it was as per
the direction of the Minister for Local Self Government Department.
It is relying on this question and answer that the petitioner wants this
Court to infer that it was at the dictate of the Minister that he was
placed under suspension and not on the independent application of
mind by the officer who has issued Ext.P9 placing him under
suspension.
2. First of all,, the question contained in Annexure B and
Annexure A are too laconic and are capable of being mislead. That
apart, Ext.P9 itself makes reference to a complaint received by the
RP No.632/2010
2
Minister concerned and that the proceedings culminating in Ext.P9
originated on that complaint. Therefore, even if further action was
ordered by the Minister, I am not persuaded to think that the Minister
concerned dictated his terms with the subordinates and that for that
reason Ext.P9 is bad.
The review petition is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC
(JUDGE)
vps
RP No.632/2010
3
RP No.632/2010
4