IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2008 / 10TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 1422 of 2008(T) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER: --------------------- T.N.KUTTIKUNJAMMA, (UNDER SUSPENSION), TECHNICAL ASSISTANT, RE-SURVEY ASSISTANT DIRECTORATE, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H. SMT.P.B.WAHIDA RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, RE-SURVEY, THODUPUZHA. 2. DIRECTOR OF SURVEY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI DISTRICT, IDUKKI. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No. 1422 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 30th January, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner, who is working as Technical Assistant in the department of Survey and Land Records and posted at the office of the Re-survey Assistant Directorate, Thodupuzha is aggrieved by Exhibit P2 order of suspension issued by the Director of Survey. Since Exhibit P2 can be challenged either in an appeal or sought to be revoked before the same authority in terms of the Kerala Civil Services (classification, control and appeal) Rules, 1960, this Court will be normally reluctant to entertain a challenge against Exhibit P2. But going through Exhibit P2 as also the writ petition, Government Pleader was directed to get instructions. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent, as directed by this Court. 2. The incident which led to the order of suspension occurred on 21.12.2007. Apparently, the Revenue Minister was holding a meeting with Revenue Officials on certain important issues in the Taluk Office, Thodupuzha on 21.12.2007. It seems W.P ( C) No. 1422 of 2008 2 that the District Collector, Idukki wanted to inspect the office of the Assistant Director (Re-survey), Thodupuzha for K.D.H village records and he had directed the Assistant Director to ensure that the office is not closed till he visits the office after the meeting. It further seems that the said direction was communicated to the petitioner- Technical Assistant who was remaining in the office of the Assistant Director. Petitioner and the Record keeper remained in the office after 5 o' clock. It seems that two other officials were present till 5.30 p.m. It further seems that at 5.50 p.m. petitioner left the office and the Collector had arrived at the office of the Assistant Director only at 6.10.p.m. It further seems that Collector was not in a position to inspect the records because the Record Keeper had left the office. The Assistant Director issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 22.12.2007 requiring her to submit an explanation as to why she had not remained in the office awaiting the District Collector in spite of specific instructions in that regard. Petitioner submitted Exhibit P1 explanation on the same day. She acknowledges the fact that she was in receipt of a communication from the Assistant Director requiring all the W.P ( C) No. 1422 of 2008 3 staff in the office to remain after the normal office hours awaiting the District Collector and that apparently most of the staff were present till 5.30 p.m. Thereafter, the petitioner, Record Keeper and a member of the staff who was deputed for night duty remained for some more time. Petitioner submits that her 13 year old daughter was alone at home and the child had called her expressing her fear of remaining alone at home. Thereupon, at 5.50 p.m, petitioner left the office requiring the Record Keeper to remain in office. Though she tried to communicate this to the Assistant Director she could not do so. She has to travel a fairly long distance to reach her house. Therefore, she had left the office at 5.50 p.m. 3. It seems that the explanation was not found to be satisfactory. Thereupon, the petitioner was served with Exhibit P2 order of suspension which has been challenged in this writ petition. A statement has been filed by the 2nd respondent, as directed by this Court repeating the version given above. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a reference to the fact that petitioner had waited in the office till 5.50 p.m. which is beyond the normal office hours. This was because W.P ( C) No. 1422 of 2008 4 instructions were conveyed to her to await the District Collector. She left the office only at 5.50 p.m. That she had remained in the office till that time does not seem to be disputed. I take note of the fact that even in the statement the respondent does not suspect the veracity of the explanation given by the petitioner in Exhibit P1. In my view, a reasonable approach should have been taken at least as regards the petitioner, a lady aged 54. According to her what compelled her to leave the office at 5.50 p,m is to reach her home where her 13 years old daughter was alone at that point of time. Without any other material,it is difficult to conclude that there was disobedience or dereliction of duty on the part of the petitioner. I would have interfered with the order of suspension, but for the fact that there is an efficacious alternate remedy available in relation to the same and also for the reason that it would be more appropriate that the Government considers the above relevant factors and comes to its own independent conclusion as to whether the suspension is justified, and at any rate whether it would not be appropriate that it is revoked, since the suspension was effected almost a month ago. W.P ( C) No. 1422 of 2008 5 For all these, this writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the 4th respondent challenging Exhibit P2 order of suspension. If such an appeal is filed within ten days from today, it shall be entertained and treated as within time and it shall be considered seriously and expeditiously. The 4th respondent shall pass orders on such appeal paying serious attention to the observations contained in this judgment, positively, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of the judgment before the 4th respondent, for compliance. (V.GIRI, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No. 1422 of 2008 6 K.THANKAPPAN,J CRL.A. NO.92 OF 1999 ORDER W.P ( C) No. 1422 of 2008 7 25th May, 2007