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. 9842 of 2008(V) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- T. PUSHPARAJ, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. THAMPI, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF SURVEY, PATHANAMTHITTA, RESIDING AT VADAKEVILA VEEDU, KUTHIRAKULAM P.O., VEMBAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) SRI.M.MANOJKUMAR (CHELAKKADAN) SMT.SMITHA GEORGE SMT.SARITHA DAVID CHUNKATH RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO REVENUE (E) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF SURVEY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.9842/2008 V APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DTD. 3/1/2005 ISSUED BY R1. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 2/04/2007 ADDRESSED TO THE DISTRICT SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 29/09/2007 ADDRESSED TO THE DISTRICT SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.3/11/2007 ADDRESSED TO THE DISTRICT SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 4/2/2008 ADDRESSED TO THE DISTRICT SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 19/03/2008 ISSUED BY R1. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.9842 of 2008 V ------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner, who is a Deputy Director of Survey, challenges Ext.P6 order of suspension. Exts.P6 states that the order of suspension has been passed on the basis of a preliminary report sent by the Joint Director, Thiruvananthapuram, in the light of allegations of extensive corruption and dereliction of duty in the office of the District Superintendent of Survey, Pathanamthitta. The order of suspension has been challenged by the petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that the Government has totally failed to apply its mind as to whether the suspension of the petitioner is required at all or not. It is further submitted that the petitioner, who is a Deputy Director of Survey, joined at Pathanamthitta, on 17.10.2006. He had repeatedly cautioned the officials in the office of the District Survey Superintendent, as evidenced by Exts.P2 to P5, and apparently it was petitioner's repeated reminders, which might have triggered an enquiry by the Joint Director. The contention is that the petitioner, who had systematically W.P.(C).NO.9842/08 :: 2 :: taken steps to discipline the affairs in the office of the District Superintendent, had been tagged along with the erring officials in the District Survey Superintendent's office and therefore he has been placed under suspension. 2. I had required the respondents to produce the files containing the report of the Joint Director forming the alleged basis of the order of suspension. I have gone through the same. The report of the Joint Director, has been reiterated in the communication by the Director referring to certain lapses in the office of the District Survey Superintendent. I find that the reference to the petitioner in this regard is in the context of noting that the petitioner continues as the Deputy Director of Survey from 17.10.2006. Apparently, the lapses in the District Survey Superintendent's office started in 2004. It seems that the Joint Director of Survey has referred to the petitioner essentially in the context of highlighting that it was the petitioner, who was the Deputy Director of Survey from 17.10.2006. But when it comes to the recommendations of the Director of Survey, there is a further statement to the effect that the mode of W.P.(C).NO.9842/08 :: 3 :: discharge of duties by the petitioner as a Deputy director has not been completely satisfactory. What follows in the letters sent by the Director of Survey is a recommendation to suspend the officials in the District Survey Superintendent's office and there is reference to the petitioner as well. 3. It would have been better had the petitioner's case been treated separately from the officials of the District Superintendent's office. After all, if there has been supervisory lapses on the part of the petitioner, the allegations levelled against the officials in the office of the Deputy Superintendent are different. If the suspension of the erring officials was found necessary, the petitioner cannot be treated equally and in the same measure. 4. I also take note of Exts.P2 and P3, which are stated to be the communications addressed by the petitioner to the District Survey Superintendent on 2.4.2007 and 29.9.2007 (Exts.P2 and P3) and another communication (Ext.P5)addressed to the Director of Survey on 4.2.2008. It seems that he himself has repeatedly brought to the notice of the concerned person, the lapses in the office of the W.P.(C).NO.9842/08 :: 4 :: District Survey Superintendent. There is substance in the contention raised by the petitioner. This attempt on the part of the petitioner does not seem to have engaged the attention of the Government while acting upon the recommendations of the Director of Survey. It is noteworthy that the petitioner's attempt to put an end to the lapses in the office of the District Survey Superintendent commenced well before the Joint Director had conducted a preliminary enquiry in February 2008. I am of the view that the Government should, without further delay, consider the question of revocation of the petitioner's suspension ordered under Ext.P6. In this regard, the Government should specifically pay attention to the following aspects: (1) Has the petitioner taken steps, as evidenced by Exts.P2 to P5, to communicate the lapses, which he detected in the office of the District Survey Superintendent. (2) Was the preliminary enquiry conducted by the Joint Director of Survey triggered by the request or communication issued by the petitioner. W.P.(C).NO.9842/08 :: 5 :: (3) Did the Government come across any specific lapse on the part of the petitioner prior to his suspension from service. After addressing these aspects as well, the Government shall pass an order in the matter of revocation of the petitioner's suspension within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment. 5. It is made clear that the steps for revocation of the suspension of the petitioner shall be dealt with independent of the case of other officers, who are suspended under the same order. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy//