IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 20362 of 2008(Y)
1. C.U.MATHEWS, HEAD SURVEYOR (UNDER
... Petitioner
2. S.NOUSHAD, FIRST GRADE SURVEYOR (UNDER
3. A.ANDREWS. SUPERINTENDENT OF SURVEY AND
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR OF SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS,
For Petitioner :SMT.I.SHEELA DEVI
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :24/02/2009
O R D E R
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P.(C). No.20362/2008-Y
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 24th day of February, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The writ petition was originally filed by the petitioners challenging their
suspension for a direction to revoke the order of suspension and reinstate them
in service. This Court after perusing the counter affidavit on behalf of the
second respondent and after noticing the fact that the Director of Vigilance and
Anti Corruption Bureau has by his letter dated 17/07/2008, informed the second
respondent that the Vigilance Department has no objection in reinstating the
petitioners in service, provided they are posted out of Idukki District, by an
interim order dated 15/10/2008, directed the first respondent to take a final
decision regarding the revocation of suspension of the petitioners.
2. Thereafter, as per Ext.P7 order dated 06/11/2008, the Government
rejected their request for reinstatement in the service.
3. A reading of Ext.P7 shows that the Director of Survey and Land
Records in his letter dated 13/08/2008 had informed the Government that since
the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau has expressed their willingness as
per letter dated 17/07/2008, to reinstate the petitioners into service and to post
them outside Idukki District. But in paragraph (4) it is stated that the Vigilance
Department as per reference letter (5) dated 27/09/2008, informed that the
Suspension Review Committee held on 30/07/2008 decided not to recommend
W.P.(C) No.20362/2008
-:2:-
the reinstatement of the petitioners, since the investigation is pending. In view
of the above position the representation was rejected. Ext.P7 is challenged, in
the amended writ petition.
4. Pending the writ petition, the first petitioner attained
superannuation on 31/01/2009.
5. In the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition, the stand taken is
that at that point of time an Enquiry Commission was also enquiring the matter
and that final vigilance report has not been received. Altogether one year and 6
months have lapsed after the order of suspension has been passed, which is
dated 31/08/2007. Under Rule 10(6) of the Kerala Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, “an order of suspension made or
deemed to have been made under this rule may at any time be revoked by the
authority which made or is deemed to have made the order or by any authority
to which that authority is subordinate.” Already, one of the persons who was
suspended namely, the first petitioner has attained superannuation. Even
though the Suspension Review Committee at that point of time did not agree for
the reinstatement of the petitioners, the Government is having all powers to
reconsider the issue in the light of the specific power conferred under Rule 10
(6) of the KCS(CC&A) Rules. Even going by the averments in the counter
affidavit and paragraph (3) of the order Ext.P7, the Vigilance and Anti
Corruption Bureau in their letter dated 17/07/2008 have expressed their
W.P.(C) No.20362/2008
-:3:-
willingness to reinstate the petitioners in their service and to post them outside
Idukki District, which fact was communicated by the Director of Survey and
Land Records to the Government. Therefore, even though the representations
were rejected as per Ext.P1 nothing prevents the Government from
reconsidering the matter in the light of the fact that the first petitioner has
already attained superannuation and more time has elapsed after the passing of
Ext.P7 order.
6. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first and
second respondents to consider afresh the request made by the petitioners to
revoke the order of suspension. The Government is free to take a decision after
calling for a fresh report from the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau and
from the second respondent Director of Survey and Land Records as to whether
the petitioners 2 and 3 need be kept under suspension pending further action in
the matter. Appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of two months
from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. The petitioners will be
free to file a fresh representation which will be produced along with the copy of
the judgment within a period of ten days from today. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
ms