IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 4612 of 2010(B) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ K.VIJAYAN, OVERSEER GRADE III, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D. (INVESTIGATION AND PLANNING (Q.C.), SUB DIVISION, KOZHIKODE-20. BY ADVS. MR.M.V.BOSE, MR.VINOD MADHAVAN, SMT.NISHA BOSE. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, P.W.D.(ADMINISTRATION), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D., INVESTIGATION AND PLANNING (QC) SUB DIVISION, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE-20. 5. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTICORRUPTION BUREAU, SPECIAL CELL, THONDAYAD, KOZHIKODE. R1 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P. (C) No. 4612 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is working as III Grade Overseer in the Public Works Department. As per Ext.P10 order dated 5.2.2010, the petitioner was placed under suspension. It is obvious from Ext. P10 that a vigilance case has been registered against him by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Special Cell, Kozhiked on 16.9.2009 as VC.1/09/SCK under section 13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The charge against the petitioner is that he has amassed wealth to the tune of Rs.8,38,991/- disproportionate to his known sources of legal income during the period between 01.01.1995 and 31.12.2004 while working in various posts under PWD. It is aggrieved by the said order of suspension that this Writ Petition has been filed. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that the charge against the petitioner is absolutely unsustainable. The petitioner is raising various contentions for that behalf. However, I am of the view that the contentions now raised by WPC.4612 of 2010 : 2 : the petitioner to contend that the order of suspension is unsustainable are matters which require consideration by the Government and that can be gone into by the Government if the petitioner files a Review Petition under Rule 35 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. 3. In this circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move the Government by filing a Review Petition under Rule 35 of KCS (CCA) Rules against Ext.P10 order. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that such a review petition will be filed within a period of two weeks. In case, such a review petition is filed within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment, the first respondent shall consider all the contentions raised in the review petition and pass orders thereon within a period of one month. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma