IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2011 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1933 WA.No. 259 of 2011() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.33922/2010 DATED 20/12/2010 .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS ------------------------------------------ 1. SINDHU RADHAKRISHNAN, W/O.SIVAKUMAR T.N., AGED 41 YEARS, ASSISTANT ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, THRISSUR - 680 002. 2. VINAYA K.S., W/O.MANOJ K.R., AGED 39 YEARS, ASSISTANT ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, PALAKKAD - 2. 3. SUSEELA NAIR V.A., W/O.H. PRABHAKARAN THAMPAN, AGED 42 YEARS, ASSISTANT ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, PALAKKAD - 2. 4. BIJU M.B., S/O.BALAN M.V., AGED 36 YEARS, SENIOR GRADE ASSISTANT, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, THRISSUR - 680 002. BY SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A, SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ----------------------------------------------- 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN - 695 001. WA.No. 259 of 2011 2. THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PLAMOODU, PATTAM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. 3. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PLAMOODU, PATTAM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN- 695 004. REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY. R1 BY SPL. GOVT. PLEADER (FINANCE) MR.N. MANOJ KUMAR. R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC, POLL.C.BOARD. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. --------------------------------------------- Writ Appeal No.259 of 2011 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of April, 2011 JUDJMENT Basheer, J. Appellant Nos.1 to 3 are working as Assistant Environmental Engineers in the Kerala State Pollution Control Board, and appellant No.4 is a Senior Grade Assistant in the Board. On October 30, 2010, the Government issued Exhibit P15 order placing them under suspension primarily on the charge that they had manipulated official records and thereby violated Rule 7(1) of the Kerala State Pollution Control Board Disciplinary Rules. The said order, was sought to be quashed in the writ petition, in which it was also interalia prayed that it may be declared that appellants were entitled to get all service benefits with interest as if Exhibit P15 order was non-est and never in operation. 2. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, taking the view that it was not a fit case to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The above judgment is under challenge in this writ appeal. 3. Sri. Krishnanunni, learned Senior counsel who appears for the appellants submits that the order of suspension is ex- Writ Appeal No.259 of 2011 2 facie arbitrary, illegal and unwarranted. He points out that the memo of charges, if one may call it so, is totally vague, sketchy and untenable for reasons more than one. Learned senior counsel has taken us through the relevant materials available on record, particularly Exhibit P15 order. He submits that the impugned order of suspension will unambiguously show that some people who had an axe to grind against the appellants were instrumental in perpetrating in this action. Resultantly appellants have been made scapegoats. He further submits that the investigating agency had, in its over enthusiasm, extracted certain confession statements from the appellants under threat and duress and the Government has relied on these so called confession statement mechanically and without any application of mind. 4. We do not propose to go into that area of controversy at this stage in view of the order that we propose to pass. The primary grievance of the appellants appears to be that the learned Single Judge has, while dismissing the writ petition made certain observations which ought to have been avoided under any circumstance. Learned senior counsel submits that the learned Single judge seems to have been carried away by the so called confession statements allegedly made by the appellants. He invites our particular attention to paragraph Writ Appeal No.259 of 2011 3 No.11 of the impugned judgment in this context. 5. There appears to be some force in the above contention. However we hasten to add that the observations were apparently made by the learned Single Judge only while discussing the back ground of the case which culminated in Exhibit P15 order. In any view of the matter we make it clear that those observation need not be treated as the final word on the issue. 6. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the impugned judgment does not warrant any interference at this stage. The learned Special Government Pleader (Finance) after getting instructions on a specific query made by us submits that the disciplinary authority will complete the process of enquiry without any further delay, at any rate within one month from today. The above statement is recorded. 7.Learned senior counsel submits that the appellants have cooperated with the enquiry proceedings so far whole heartedly, and that they will continue to do so. Their only anxiety is that they may not be harassed any further. 8. In the above facts and circumstances the writ appeal is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 to complete the disciplinary enquriy within one month from today. It shall be Writ Appeal No.259 of 2011 4 ensured that the proceedings are held on a day today basis if found necessary. The disciplinary authority shall take a decision in the matter untrammelled by any of the observations made by the learned single Judge touching upon the merit or demerit of the case. The authority shall take a decision strictly on merit and in accordance with law after affording sufficient opportunity to the appellants to defend their case. The appellants shall also cooperate with the enquriy as undertaken by them. Writ appeal is disposed of in the above terms. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE. P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE. rkc