IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2008 / 2ND SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 22302 of 2008(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------- T.K.SUBHASHKUMAR, VILLAGE OFFICER (UNDER SUSPENSION) VILLAGE OFFICE, CHEMPU, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENTS: -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 4. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOTTAYAM. 5. P.A. KRISHNAN, PARAPPIL HOUSE, CHEMPU P.O., VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.22302 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 24th July, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is working as Village Officer in Chempu Village Office in Vaikom Taluk. A poovaka tree worth about Rs.10,000/- situated in the Village Office compound was apparently causing disturbance and nuisance to the neighbouring property owner Mr.Abdul Rahiman. According to the petitioner, a complaint raised by the neighbour was brought to the notice of the Tahasildar and the Additional District Magistrate and permission was sought to take appropriate action thereon. Before action was forthcoming, since the complaint raised by the neighbouring property owner was persistent, according to the petitioner, the tree was cut and removed. The timber was entrusted to a 3rd party on a kychit. On a complaint by the residents of the neighbours alleging impropriety by the Village officer in cutting, removing and disposing of the tree standing in the Government land. Pursuant to a W.P ( C) No.22302 of 2008 2 preliminary enquiry, petitioner has been placed under suspension pending detailed enquiry, as evidenced by Exhibit P3 order passed by the District Collector. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no impropriety committed by the petitioner. The entire timber is still available with the Kaichitdar and the value thereof will be got determined and proceeds appropriated to the Exchequer. Petitioner was well meaning in abating a nuisance that was caused by a tree standing on the boundary of the property. Apparently, the tree had fallen. But in my view, there is an alternate remedy available to the petitioner under Rule 10 (6) of the Kerala Civil Services (classification control and appeal) Rules or an appeal as the case may be. Petitioner has already invoked it under Rule 10 (6) of the Kerala Civil Services (classification, control and appeal) Rules, 1960. Exhibit-P4 may be treated as an application for revocation or as an application under Rule 22 of the Kerala Civil Services (classification, control and appeal) Rules, 1960. Government is competent to pass orders thereon. W.P ( C) No.22302 of 2008 3 In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider Exhibit P4 and pass orders, after hearing the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent for compliance. (V.GIRI, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.22302 of 2008 4 W.P ( C) No.22302 of 2008 5