IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 280 of 2008(G)
1. J.SHERIEF, S/O.P.JAMAL MOHAMMED,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :25/01/2008
O R D E R
V.GIRI,J.
-------------------------
W.P ( C) No. 280 of 2008
--------------------------
Dated this the 25th January, 2008
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner while serving as a Superintendent in the
Kochi Corporation was suspended from service as per Exhibit P2
order. He moved the authorities against the order of suspension
seeking revocation of the same. Suspension was revoked under
Exhibit P3 order but subject to the rider of that he may be
posted in any of the Municipalities except in Pathanamthitta and
Ernakulam Districts. Petitioner sought for variation of Exhibit
P3 vide Exhibit P4 which was rejected under Exhibit P5 order,
The same is under challenge in this writ petition.
2. Petitioner cannot be aggrieved by Exhibit P3 order as
such. The allegations forming the subject matter of enquiry,
pending which the petitioner has been placed under suspension
is relatable to the petitioner’s tenure in the Thiruvalla
Municpality. The restriction on posting the petitioner in
Pathanamthitta District cannot be faulted with. But it is difficult
to understand why the restriction should be extended to the
W.P ( C) No. 280 of 2008
2
Municipalities in Ernakulam district also. I do not express any
final opinion on this aspect.
3. Learned Government Pleader submits that petitioner
cannot insist on a particular place of posting, on revocation of
suspension. This is correct. But restriction imposed must be
independently justified.
In the result, this writ petition is disposed of permitting the
petitioner to move for a change in Exhibit P3 in so far as it
relates to the restriction on the petitioner being posted in any of
the Municipalities in Ernakulam district. If the petitioner moves
for variation of Exhibit P3, within one month from today, it shall
be looked into by the Government and appropriate decision
taken in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner, within
three months thereafter. Such decision shall be taken
untrammeled by Exhibit P5. I make it clear that I have not
expressed any opinion on the merits of the contentions of either
parties.
(V.GIRI, JUDGE)
ma
W.P ( C) No. 280 of 2008
2
K.THANKAPPAN,J
CRL.A. NO.92 OF 1999
W.P ( C) No. 280 of 2008
2
ORDER
25th May, 2007