IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2009 / 26TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 18591 of 2009(T) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- K.B.JEEVANANDAN, CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADAKKEKARA, NORTH PARUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY MR.KRB.KAIMAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADVS.MR.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL MR.V.MADHUSUDHANAN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM (RURAL) ALUVA. R1 TO R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P(C) No. 18591 of 2009-T ------------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of July, 2009. J U D G M E N T Heard Sri.K.R.B.Kaimal, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Anu Sivaraman, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner, a Circle Inspector of Police challenges Ext.P1 order dated 29.6.2009 issued by the Director General of Police, placing him under suspension. The petitioner challenges Ext.P1 on the ground that it is rested on incorrect facts and that there was total non application of mind to the relevant facts before the decision to place him under suspension was taken. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the learned Government Pleader made available to me a copy of the report dated 6.5.2009 submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Special Branch, Ernakulam Rural to the Director General of Police, which is referred to in Ext.P1. I have gone through the said report. The Deputy Superintendent of Police has in his report dealt with in detail about the registration of the two criminal cases referred to in Ext.P1 and also the arrest of the accused therein. A reading of the report, in my opinion justifies the action taken by the Director General of Police. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner however submits that subsequent to W.P(C) No. 18591 of 2009-T 2 the said report, another report dated 2.7.2009 was submitted to the Director General of Police by another officer in respect of the same very subject matter and therefore the order of suspension is liable to be invalidated. 3. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. Ext.P1 order of suspension which is impugned in this writ petition, is one passed by the Director General of Police. Under Rule 23(b) of the Kerala Police Departmental Enquiries Punishment & Appeal Rules, 1958 the petitioner is entitled to file an appeal from the order placing him under suspension. The petitioner thus has an effective and meaningful alternative remedy wherein he can question the validity of the decision taken by the Director General of Police to place him under suspension. Rule 27(b) prescribes a time limit of two months from the date on which a copy of the order appealed against is communicated to the appellant for filing an appeal. Since Ext.P1 order was passed on 29.6.2009, it cannot be said that the period for filing the appeal has expired. Since the petitioner has an effective and meaningful alternative remedy, I am of the opinion that he should resort to the said remedy instead of seeking the intervention of this Court. I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with the direction that in W.P(C) No. 18591 of 2009-T 3 the event of the petitioner filing an appeal before the Government of Kerala under Rule 27(b) of the Rules in the prescribed manner, the Government shall consider the same and pass orders thereon expeditiously and in any event within two months from the date on which such an appeal is filed by the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. The contentions of the petitioner on the merits are kept open. Sd/- P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE //True Copy// PA to Judge ab