IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2010 / 17TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15360 of 2010(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- P.S.AJITH PRASAD, SUPERINTENDENT CORPORATION OF KOCHI, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.TOJAN J. VATHIKULAM SRI.MANU GOVIND RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT LOCAL SELF GOVT. DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CORPORATION OF KOCHI, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU SRI.S.RAMESH BABU, SC FOR CORPN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 15360 OF 2010 (T) ===================== Dated this the 7th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a Superintendent in the Cochin Corporation. He challenges Ext.P9, the order issued by the 1st respondent placing him under suspension. On a complaint made by an assessee of a building by name Dr.K.Balanchandran, a Revenue Officer and Deputy Secretary of the Corporation were placed under suspension by Ext.P7. Thereafter, the aforesaid complainant filed Ext.P8 to the Government clarifying that his original complaint was against the officers including the petitioner and it was specifically alleged that these two officers had harassed him and demanded consideration for assessment of property tax for his building. After Ext.P8 was received by the Government, the matter was considered, and it was finally that Ext.P9 order was issued placing the petitioner under suspension. 2. Having regard to the nature of the allegations levelled by the complainant, which was found to be worthy of further enquiry including disciplinary action against the petitioner, I do not think this Court will be justified in interfering with Ext.P8. WPC No. 15360/10 :2 : Therefore, if at all the petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P9, the remedy of the petitioner is to have seek its revocation or to file appeal. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp