K.Surendran vs Govt. Of Kerala on 9 April, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 11769 of 2008(A)


1. K.SURENDRAN, S/O.ANANTHAN, GALAXY,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. GOVT. OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE

3. THE CHAIRMAN, STATE CO-OPERATIVE UNION,

4. THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), PALAKKAD.

5. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR/PRINCIPAL

6. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR (AUDIT), OFFICE

7. A.K.G.MEMORIAL CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU

                For Respondent  : No Appearance


 Dated :09/04/2008

 O R D E R
            THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
                   -------------------------------------------
                     W.P(C).No.11769 OF 2008
                   -------------------------------------------
                Dated this the 9th day of April, 2008


                               JUDGMENT

The petitioner was placed under suspension by the

competent authority as per Ext.P1 order dated 15.3.2008. The

primary contention raised in this writ petition or rather the only

one that is urged is that the incident referred to in Ext.P1 relates

to 1999 and that the said transaction was in relation to the

activities of a co-operative hospital, of which, the petitioner, at

that point of time, was the administrator in his capacity as the

Co-operative Inspector. The fact remains that Ext.P1 is

generated after the report dated 28.1.2008 was obtained from

the Additional Registrar (Audit). Learned Government Pleader

has placed before me a copy of the report. I have perused the

same. The statements made in that report are touching the

conduct of a person while dealing with the office of a co-

operative society, that too, in relation to management of funds. I

do not want to go deep into the allegations, because, that may

lead to prejudice in further proceedings by the disciplinary

WPC.11769/08

2

authority. It is obvious that Ext.P1 is a prelude to impending

disciplinary proceedings. I do not find any jurisdictional error or

legal infirmity in the issuance of Ext.P1, not is it appropriate at

this point of time to order revocation of Ext.P1 order of

suspension. The writ petition fails. The same is accordingly

dismissed.

Sd/-

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
Judge
kkb.