IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 2125 of 2010()
1. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
... Petitioner
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
Vs
1. M.G.MADANAMOHAN,ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
... Respondent
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.J.CHELAMESWAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :24/01/2011
O R D E R
J. CHELAMESWAR, CJ &
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
..............................................................................
W.A.No. 2125 OF 2010
.........................................................................
Dated this the 24th January, 2011
J U D G M E N T
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.
Whether the learned single Judge has gone wrong in
dismissing the I.A. filed by the State/Appellant to vacate the
interim order passed earlier intercepting the order of suspension,
is the point involved in this appeal.
2. The sequence of facts as narrated in the Writ Petition as
well as in the writ Appeal shows that, the petitioner while
working as Asst. Registrar (Audit), Mananthavady, which is
stated as a gazetted post, was transferred to Thiruvalla and he
joined there on 26.04.2010. While so, he was again transferred
as Asst. Registrar/Concurrent Auditor, Thalassery Co-operative
Rural Bank on 11.11.2010, which, in fact, was challenged by him
by filing W.P.(C)No.34730 of 2010, wherein Ext. P7 interim order
of stay was passed on 19.11.2010, which is stated as served
only on 25.11.2010. In the meanwhile, in connection with
various misconducts committed by the delinquent employee,
which actually amounted to serious offences, a criminal case had
already been registered and final report was submitted by the
W.A.No. 2125 OF 2010
2
police under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Taking note of the report of the
concerned authorities in this regard, the petitioner was placed
under suspension as per order dated 15.11.2010, which, hence,
was subjected to challenge by the writ petitioner, stating that it
was nothing but arbitrary and malafide.
3. A learned single Judge of this Court passed an interim
order dated 29.11.2010 intercepting the suspension. Being
aggrieved of the said order, I.A.No. 17113 of 2010 was preferred
by the State, seeking to vacate the interim order. After
considering the facts and circumstances, the prayer was declined
and the I.A. was dismissed, which forms the subject matter of
challenge in this appeal.
4. Heard the learned Spl. Government Pleader appearing
for the appellant at length, who submits that the misconducts
committed by the petitioner are very serious including
falsification of accounts and such other offences, particularly
under sections 407, 408, 477, 477A r/w. 34 of the IPC and that
initiation of appropriate proceedings are very much essential to
safeguard the interest of the State. It is pointed out that by
virtue of the mandate under the relevant service rules,
W.A.No. 2125 OF 2010
3
disciplinary proceedings stand initiated by placing the petitioner
under suspension. It is also brought out that the transfer was
ordered actually on 11.11.2010, whereas suspension was ordered
immediately after going through the report of the concerned
authority on 15.11.2010. The interim order intercepting the
transfer, as borne by Ext.P7, was passed only on 19.11.2010,
serving a copy of the same, later on 25.11.2010. This being the
position, there is absolutely no question of malafides on the part
of the respondents in the Writ Petition, submits the learned
Special Government Pleader.
5. We do not propose to go into the merits of the case for
the time being, for the fact that the Writ Petition is still pending.
However, going by the undisputed facts as narrated above and
also since the petitioner is to retire from the service only on
31.03.2011, there is sufficient time for issuance of charge memo
and to take the proceedings to a logical conclusion in the due
course. As rightly observed by the learned single Judge in the
order dated 29.11.2010, the criminal case was registered in the
year 2007 and Ext.P5 final report was submitted on 27.10.2008;
while the suspension was ordered only on 15.11.2010. The very
W.A.No. 2125 OF 2010
4
purpose of suspension is to see that the delinquent employee
does not get a chance to influence the witnesses or tamper with
the evidence in any manner. The investigation is already
complete and the misconducts are in respect of the period 2004-
05. It is the settled position of law, that suspension cannot be
a substitute for the punishment.
In the above circumstances, we find no ground to interfere
with the orders passed by the learned single Judge. The Appeal
fails and the same is dismissed accordingly.
J. CHELAMESWAR,
CHIEF JUSTICE.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.
lk