IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 33284 of 2006(K)
1. A.NAZER BABU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DIRECTOR,
... Respondent
2. PRINCIPAL,
For Petitioner :SRI.B.RAGUNATHAN
For Respondent :SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SC, IHRDE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :02/04/2007
O R D E R
K.M.JOSEPH, J.
------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.33284 OF 2006
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2007
JUDGMENT
Ext.P1 dated 06/03/2000 is the order placing the petitioner
under suspension. Petitioner was served Ext.P2 memo of charges.
By Ext.P4 judgment the Judicial First Class Magistrate,
Mavelikkara has proceeded to acquit the petitioner of the charges
levelled against him under section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. Petitioner filed Ext.P5 requesting to reinstate him in
service immediately. This court directed the same to be considered
by Ext.P6. By Ext.P8 order the Director took note of the fact that
the charges against the petitioner is that of the same charges
framed by the police before the learned Magistrate. But the
respondents could not proceed with the departmental action
because the records were taken by the police to proceed with the
case before the criminal court. It is stated that the records are
WPC No.33284/06 2
available and therefore it has been decided to proceed with the
departmental proceedings and complete the enquiry within two
months. It is also stated that the acquittal was on the basis of the
failure to conduct proper investigation and to adduce proper and
adequate evidence before the Magistrate. Ext.P8 order is dated
23/08/2006. Petitioner challenges Exts.P1, P2 and P8 and seeks a
direction to reinstate him in service.
2. Counter affidavit is filed by respondents, where in it is
inter-alia stated that petitioner was proceeded against for
misappropriation of funds and suspicious payment etc. Essentially
the same stand is taken as in Ext.P8.
3. I heard learned counsel for th petitioner and learned
senior counsel Sri.N.N.Sugunapalan appearing for respondents
also.
4. Petitioner was suspended nearly 7 years ago. He stands
acquitted under Section 248(1)Cr.P.C. vide Ext.P4 judgment.
In fact, the law requires that there should be a review of the
WPC No.33284/06 3
suspension after a period of one year.
In such circumstances, particularly in view of the fact that the
charges for which petitioner is proceeded with the departmental
proceedings is same as he was proceeded in the criminal court, it
may not be proper to keep the petitioner under suspension.
Accordingly, Ext.P1 and Ext.P8 to the extent that petitioner is not
granted the relief of immediate reinstatement are quashed. It is
however made clear that it is open to the respondents to proceed to
bring the departmental proceedings commenced against the
petitioner to its logical conclusion and take action based on the
findings in the enquiry. Petitioner shall be reinstated in service
within a period of two weeks from today.
K.M.JOSEPH
JUDGE
sv.
WPC No.33284/06 4