IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 33855 of 2006(E)
1. K.T.SUDHAMANY, MUTTEL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.K.DENESAN
Dated :12/01/2007
O R D E R
K.K.DENESAN, J
-------------------------------
W.P.(C)NO. 33855 of 2006
-------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of January, 2007
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is kept under suspension from service as per
Ext.P1 Order dated 18.10.2006 passed by the second respondent. The
ground for suspension is that she was convicted and sentenced to
undergo imprisonment under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act and that she is facing prosecution proceedings for the
very same offences alleging that she had borrowed money from few
persons. Against the order of conviction and sentence, the petitioner
had approached this Court and as per Ext.P4 order passed in
Crl..R.P.No.4088/2006, the conviction and sentence imposed on the
petitioner were set aside and she was acquitted under Section 328 of
the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner is due to retire from service
by the end of March 2007. She has filed Ext.P5 representation before
the second respondent requesting to revoke the order of suspension.
2. The provision of law referred to in Ext.P5 is not the one that
applies to members of the Police Department. However, in view of the
fact that the second respondent has got the power under the relevant
rules to revoke the order of suspension, reference to a wrong provision
W.P.(C)No.33855/2006 2
of law need not stand in the way of the second respondent exercising
the power conferred on him under the relevant rules.
3. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Government
Pleader for the respondents.
4. The second respondent has got a duty to pass early orders on
Ext.P5, especially in view of the fact that the petitioner is due to retire
from service by the end of March 2007. Hence, there shall be an order
directing the second respondent to consider Ext.P5 with reference to
all relevant records and materials and pass orders, in accordance with
law, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of the judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment
before the second respondent for information and compliance.
The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.
K.K.DENESAN, JUDGE
css/
W.P.(C)No.33855/2006 3