IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2009 / 4TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 17741 of 2009(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.THULASEEDHARAN, HEAD VEHICLE SUPERIVISOR, KSRTC, KATTAKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.ANILKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AND OTHERS 2. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (VIGILANCE), KSRTC, HEAD OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KILIMANOOR. BY SC JOHNSON P JOHN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 17741 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF JUNE, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner was promoted as Head Vehicle Supervisor. Ext.P3 order of suspension was issued placing him and Muraleedharan, a Vehicle Supervisor under suspension. The allegation against them is that during a particular slot, both of them discharged the duties and responsibilities of the same post against the provisions of the KSRTC and instructions by the immediate superior officer. I note these allegations for the limited purpose of reading the contents of Ext.P3. This court would not give its seal of approval to the allegations or to the defence thereto as set up by the petitioner. The relief sought for in this writ petition is to quash the said order of suspension. 2. As of now, the petitioner has been re-admitted to duty. This means that he does not continue under suspension. The petitioner essentially wants this court to sit in judgment on the sustainability of the allegations against him as contained in Wpc 17741/2009 2 Ext.P3. This is clearly impermissible. Firstly, the disputes revolve on the questions of fact. Secondly more importantly, the petitioner is facing disciplinary proceedings on charges referable to the allegations contained in Ext.P3. It is only on the conclusion of that enquiry, would the employer stand obliged to issue orders as to how the period of suspension is to be treated. I would be attempting to put the cart before the horse, if I were to interfere and quash the suspension order thereby taking the wind out off the sail as regards the disciplinary proceedings. For the aforesaid reasons, preserving the right of the petitioner to move the appropriate authority, for orders regarding the period of suspension, as and when disciplinary proceedings are concluded, this writ petition is dismissed. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/27/6