IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2008 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 15396 of 2008(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ THOMAS MATHEW, SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF DAIRY DEVELOPMENT, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE (DAIRY) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF DAIRY DEVELOPMENT, DIRECTORATE OF DAIRY DEVELOPMENT, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF DAIRY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OF DAIRY DEVELOPMENT, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 4. M.V.MARY, HEAD CLERK, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF DAIRY DEVELOPMENT, IDUKKI THODUPUZHA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.R.SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. GIRI, J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO.15396 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P10 order of suspension. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Elvin Peter submits that the reasons stated in suspending the petitioner as such viz. that he has not been able to retrieve a file kept in the office of the Idukki District is absolutely irrelevant and untenable. In so far as the petitioner is concerned, it is pointed out that the petitioner himself had earlier pointed out that the file is missing and the matter has to be reported to the police. It is further pointed out that while functioning as the Senior Superintendent in the Idukki District Office he had written to the Deputy Director as early as in July 2007 regarding the incident of the missing of the file in question. That he requested that the issue be reported to the police for registration of crime and for appropriate action. In fact the petitioner was subjected to transfer in November 2007 from Idukki to Pathanamthitta in connection with such incident. The suspension is now affected under Ext.P10 WPC.15396 /2008 2 order, when the petitioner is serving at Idukki. 2. The following order was passed on 26.5.2008. “ Government Pleader shall produce the files bearing No.A/2287/2007 and the letter stated to have been submitted by the petitioner to the third respondent, which is stated to be included in the said file.” 3. Today when the matter is taken up, the files are made available for perusal. I have perused the files. The contention of the petitioner seems to be that he cannot be blamed for the missing file and he had acted as per the direction of the Deputy Director and prepared a letter addressed to the Circle Inspector of Police, Thodupuzha as early as on 4.7.2007. It is not very certain that the said letter was sent as such. The petitioner has a further case that the request to bring to the notice of the police authorities was again reiterated by the original of Ext.P5 letter. He further submits that the Deputy Director has endorsed the receipt in the original of Ext.P5. It is further submitted that since the petitioner himself has been transferred in November 2007 itself to Pathanamthitta, but the files are yet to be retrieved, there is no justification in suspending the petitioner. 4. What is required is an appraisal of facts and in my view WPC.15396 /2008 3 it is better that the Government undertakes such an exercise . The Government should seriously take note of the petitioner's contention as outlined in the writ petition. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of in the following terms: The petitioner may file an appeal against Ext.P10 within two weeks from today and if it is so filed, it shall be considered and a decision taken thereon in the matter of revoking the suspension of the petitioner within three weeks thereafter. The petitioner shall be heard before an order is passed. V. GIRI, JUDGE. Pmn/ WPC.15396 /2008 4 V. GIRI, JUDGE. pmn/ WPC.15396 /2008 5