IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2011/30TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WPC.No. 34452 of 2011 (F) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ 1. K.PAVITHRAN, SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICE (HOMEO), KANNUR 670 001. BY ADV. SRI. KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001. 2. DIRECTOR OF HOMEOPATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 3. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE OF HOMEOPATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 4. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HOMEO), KANNUR 670 001. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. JOSE ADIYODI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-12-2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DSV/- WPC.No. 34452 of 2011 (F) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF SRI.SAMRATH M.M EXT.P2 COPY OF THE MEMO DT.26.09.2011. EXT.P3 COPY OF THE REQUEST DT.31.10.2011. EXT.P4 COPY OF THE ORDER DT.16.11.2011. EXT.P5 COPY OF THE ORDER DT.6.12.2011 EXT.P6 COPY OF THE REPLY DT.9.12.2011. EXT.P7 COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT EXT.P8 COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER DT.09.12.2011. EXT.P9 COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT WHICH APPEARED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DT.09.12.2011. EXT.P10 COPY OF THE CONFIDENTIAL REPORT DT.02.06.2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE DSV/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.34452 of 2011. = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 21st December, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a Senior Superintendent. He has filed this writ petition aggrieved by Ext.P8 order by which he has been suspended from service. The allegation against him is that he had granted an order of compassionate appointment to a person overlooking the seniority that is to be observed. Accordingly, an explanation was sought from the petitioner as per Ext.P5. The petitioner submitted Ext.P6 reply on 9.12.2011. On the same day, Ext.P8 order has been issued suspending the petitioner from service pending enquiry. 2. According to the counsel for the petitioner, Ext.P8 has been issued without considering Ext.P6 explanation for the reason that Ext.P8 is dated 9.12.2011, the same date as Ext.P6. Therefore, it is contended that the suspension of WP(C).No.34452/2011. 2 the petitioner is absolutely uncalled for and liable to be set aside. 3. I notice from Ext.P8 that the petitioner has been placed under suspension pending enquiry. It is well settled that suspension is not a punishment. Therefore, even if an order of suspension has been passed without complying with the principles of natural justice, that cannot said to vitiate the suspension. The petitioner would certainly get sufficient opportunity to present his case during the course of the enquiry that is contemplated. Therefore, I am not satisfied that Ext.P8 calls for any interference at the hands of this Court, at this stage. 4. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner may be granted liberty to seek review of his suspension and to seek reinstatement in service. For the purpose of doing so, no liberty as such is required. The petitioner has the right to move for reinstatement, as and when necessary. WP(C).No.34452/2011. 3 5. I do not find any ground to entertain this writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. It is made clear that all the contentions of the petitioner are left open. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, (Judge) Kvs/-