IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 7865 of 2010(G) 1. M.SHAMSUDHEENKUTTY S/O MOHAMMED KUNJU, ... Petitioner Vs 1. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT ... Respondent 2. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (VIG.), 3. THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER, For Petitioner :SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC Dated :11/03/2010 O R D E R ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.7865 OF 2010 (G) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T
Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P1, an order
passed by the 2nd respondent placing the petitioner under
suspension, pending disciplinary action. Petitioner is a vehicle
Supervisor in the Kottarakara Depot of the first respondent. It is on
the allegation that, on 17.2.2010, the petitioner misbehaved to the
Zonal Officer and made certain remarks which were contemptuous
of the superior officers, that the petitioner has been placed under
suspension, pending disciplinary action.
2. According to the petitioner, on 17.2.2010, the date on
which the alleged incident had happed, as he was feeling sick, he
reported to the hospital at 7 a.m. and thereafter came to his work
place. It is alleged that an incident of the type as alleged has not
happened. It is also his case that, even if any misconduct has been
committed, unless public interest and gravity of the misconduct
deserves, the employee should not be placed under suspension as
a matter of routine.
3. The truth or otherwise of the allegations constituting the
misconduct is a matter for enquiry to be conducted by the
disciplinary authority. At this stage, the question is whether Ext.P1
order of suspension justified. A reading of Ext.P1 shows that the
allegation is that the petitioner has misbehaved to the Zonal Officer
and made certain statements which are contemptuous of the
superior officers. It is stated that a person working in the
Supervisory cadre has to be a model for others and by the aforesaid
act, he committed a grave misconduct warranting disciplinary
action and therefore he was placed under suspension.
4. Discipline is an internal matter, which is to be regulated by
the orders of the disciplinary authority and when the disciplinary
authority has, on the allegations made in Ext.P1, decided that the
petitioner should be placed under suspension, this court will not be
justified in imposing its view, on the views expressed by the
disciplinary authority. Therefore I do not think that Ext.P1 order of
suspension warrants interference on that ground.
5. However, there is substance in the case of the petitioner
that since he is due for retirement on 31.7.2010, disciplinary
enquiry should be expedited and concluded.
Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the
respondents to expedite the disciplinary enquiry pursuant to Ext.P1
and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible and at any rate
thin 3 months from the date of production of a copy of the