IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 20619 of 2008(D)
1. K.VIKRAMAN NAIR, PREVENTIVE OFFICER
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE,
3. EXCISE VIGILANCE OFFICER,
4. ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, KOLLAM.
5. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE,
For Petitioner :SRI.B.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :09/07/2008
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J
-------------------
W.P.(C).20619/2008
--------------------
Dated this the 9th day of July, 2008
JUDGMENT
Petitioner, who is Preventive Officer in the Excise
Office, Karunagappally, is aggrieved by Ext.P12 order of
suspension issued by the Excise Commissioner. The
Excise commissioner was required to suspend the
petitioner, as evidenced by Ext.P11 communication issued
by the Government. Government had apparently referred
to Ext.P7 report of the Excise Vigilance, submitted after an
enquiry into the allegation against the petitioner by an
accused in Crime No.45/2006 of Karunagappally Excise
Range. Apparently in the course of enquiry into the
complaint, certain other aspects were also looked into and
in Ext.P7 report, there is a recommendation, requiring the
petitioner to be transferred. There is also a tentative
finding that for extraneous reasons, an innocent man had
been arrested or caused to be arrested and that the
petitioner has indulged in several irregularities. There is
also a recommendation that there should be a fresh
investigation into crime No.45/2006 of Karunagappally
W.P.(C).20619/2008
2
Excise Range.
2. Ext.P7 is only one of the materials which would be
available in the course of any enquiry that may be
conducted against the petitioner. Obviously, findings
therein are only tentative.
3. Government and the Competent Authority are
entitled to take note of it and then decide whether a
detailed disciplinary enquiry is necessary. A reading of
Ext.P12 will show that the Excise Range Commissioner
had taken note of the fact that the accused in crime
No.45/2006 was kept in jail for a period of 76 days.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this
was because there was nobody to enlarge him on bail.
There is also a reference to the alleged practice being
followed by the petitioner, where he stands proximate to
a retail liquor shop, and accerts the persons who come
from out of the shop and then receives money from them,
for not charging them with any offence under the Abkari
W.P.(C).20619/2008
3
Act. These are of course, matters on which an enquiry
will be necessary. But it cannot be said that there is
total non application of mind on the part of either the
Government or the Excise Commissioner in suspending
the petitioner. I do not therefore, find any grounds to
interfere with Exts.P11 and P12.
4. Nevertheless, since the reference made in Ext.P12
are only tentative, it is open to the petitioner to place
all available materials before the Government, to show
that there is no reason why the petitioner should be kept
under suspension. Such a right is made available to the
petitioner under Rule 10(6) of the K.C.S. (C.C. & A)
Rules, 1960.
5. In the circumstances, if the petitioner files an
application under Rule 10(6) of the Rules within three
weeks from today, before the Government, Government
shall treat the same either as an application for
revocation or as an appeal against the order of
W.P.(C).20619/2008
4
suspension issued by the Commissioner and then take a
decision thereon, within four months thereafter. I think
it is appropriate that the Government deals with the
application, in circumstances where the order of
suspension, though issued by the Excise Commissioner,
is nevertheless at the instance of the Government itself.
Subject to the above, writ petition is disposed of.
V.GIRI,
Judge
mrcs