IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 25723 of 2008(K)
1. D.JOHNSON,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :01/09/2008
O R D E R
P.N. RAVINDRAN, J.
------------------------------
W.P(C). No. 25723 of 2008
------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of September, 2008
JUDGMENT
The petitioner challenges Exhibit P1 order, by which he was
placed under suspension pending departmental enquiry. Exhibit P1
discloses that the allegations relate to fabrication of false vouchers and
claim and receipt of excess travelling allowances beyond limits etc. It is
also stated that without the prior sanction of the Government, the
petitioner had undertaken official trips outside the state. The petitioner
submits that the order of suspension is not warranted and that the
Government have acted mechanically and without application of mind,
when it passed the order of suspension. The petitioner submits that he
has in Exhibit P2 representation dated 18/08/2008, requested the
Government to revoke the suspension.
I have heard Sri. Pirappancode V.S. Sudheer, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Smt. T.B. Remani, the learned
Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. As the disciplinary
authority has decided to place the petitioner under suspension on the
WP(C). No. 25723/ 2008
Page numbers
basis of the materials available before it, pending detailed enquiry, it
would not be just or proper for this court to sit in appeal over the said
decision, in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. Further, the petitioner has sought a review of the
order of suspension invoking Rule 10(6) of the Kerla Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960. In that view of the
matter, I dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent
to consider Exhibit P2 and pass appropriate orders thereon at the
earliest and in any case within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall also be given an
opportunity of being heard in person before orders are passed on
Exhibit P2.
P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE
scm