IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 15396 of 2008(G)
1. THOMAS MATHEW, SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF DAIRY DEVELOPMENT,
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF DAIRY DEVELOPMENT
4. M.V.MARY, HEAD CLERK, OFFICE OF THE
For Petitioner :SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :03/06/2008
O R D E R
V. GIRI, J.
-------------------------------
WP(C).NO.15396 of 2008
---------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2008
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P10 order of suspension.
Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Elvin Peter submits that
the reasons stated in suspending the petitioner as such viz. that
he has not been able to retrieve a file kept in the office of the
Idukki District is absolutely irrelevant and untenable. In so far
as the petitioner is concerned, it is pointed out that the
petitioner himself had earlier pointed out that the file is missing
and the matter has to be reported to the police. It is further
pointed out that while functioning as the Senior Superintendent
in the Idukki District Office he had written to the Deputy Director
as early as in July 2007 regarding the incident of the missing of
the file in question. That he requested that the issue be
reported to the police for registration of crime and for appropriate
action. In fact the petitioner was subjected to transfer in
November 2007 from Idukki to Pathanamthitta in connection with
such incident. The suspension is now affected under Ext.P10
WPC.15396 /2008 2
order, when the petitioner is serving at Idukki.
2. The following order was passed on 26.5.2008.
” Government Pleader shall produce the files bearing
No.A/2287/2007 and the letter stated to have been
submitted by the petitioner to the third respondent,
which is stated to be included in the said file.”
3. Today when the matter is taken up, the files are made
available for perusal. I have perused the files. The contention of
the petitioner seems to be that he cannot be blamed for the
missing file and he had acted as per the direction of the Deputy
Director and prepared a letter addressed to the Circle Inspector
of Police, Thodupuzha as early as on 4.7.2007. It is not very
certain that the said letter was sent as such. The petitioner has
a further case that the request to bring to the notice of the police
authorities was again reiterated by the original of Ext.P5 letter.
He further submits that the Deputy Director has endorsed the
receipt in the original of Ext.P5. It is further submitted that since
the petitioner himself has been transferred in November 2007
itself to Pathanamthitta, but the files are yet to be retrieved,
there is no justification in suspending the petitioner.
4. What is required is an appraisal of facts and in my view
WPC.15396 /2008 3
it is better that the Government undertakes such an exercise .
The Government should seriously take note of the petitioner’s
contention as outlined in the writ petition.
In the result, the writ petition is disposed of in the following
terms:
The petitioner may file an appeal against Ext.P10 within two
weeks from today and if it is so filed, it shall be considered and a
decision taken thereon in the matter of revoking the suspension
of the petitioner within three weeks thereafter. The petitioner
shall be heard before an order is passed.
V. GIRI, JUDGE.
Pmn/
WPC.15396 /2008 4
V. GIRI, JUDGE.
pmn/
WPC.15396 /2008 5