IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 28970 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ F.YESUDAS, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.FRANCIS.P, PLANT OPERATOR (NOW UNDER SUSPENSION), KERALA LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT BOARD LTD., MATTUPETTY UNIT, RESIDING AT PUTHUPARAMBIL (H), MALAKUNNAM.P.O, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.RENJITHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- KERALA LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT BOARD LTD., REPRESENTED BY IT'S MANAGING DIRECTOR, GOKULAM, PATTOM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 28970 OF 2009 (M) ===================== Dated this the 12th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a workman under the respondent. In this writ petition, he is challenging Ext.P1 order issued by the respondent placing the petitioner under suspension pending further disciplinary action. The allegation in Ext.P1 is that in the matter of certain purchases of electrical items effected by the petitioner, irregularities have been noticed. The contentions raised by the petitioner are mainly that he is the member of a trade union which have raised allegations of corruption and mal administration against the Managing Director of the respondent, that certain disputes raised by the Union are pending before the labour authorities and that on the complaint made before the Kerala Lok Ayukta, Ext.P6 enquiry report has been submitted. It is stated that in view of all this, in order to wreak vengeance on the petitioner, he has been placed under suspension. 2. Yet another contention raised is that the purchase of electrical items mentioned in Ext.P1 were on the directions of the Deputy General Manager (BT), his superior. It is stated that WPC 28970/09 :2 : purchases were effected, goods were delivered at the store and that he having acted on the directions of the superior, a case of misconduct is not made out to place him under suspension. It is also his contention that he was only discharging his duties as a subordinate in terms of the provisions contained in Ext.P2, the certified standing orders applicable to the establishment. 3. I shall first deal with the contention of the petitioner that he was only acting on the directions of his superior and therefore no case of misconduct has been made out. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, it has been stated that the Deputy General Manager (BT) had not entrusted the petitioner with the responsibility to purchase any article from Everest Agencies, Cochin. It is stated that the DGM had not received any quotation from the supplier and that Ext.P4 has not been produced before the DGM also. According to the respondent, petitioner unauthorisedly effected the purchase, and that to show that the purchase was at a lower price, he obtained Exts.R1 and R1(a) offers from two other suppliers at higher rates. It is also their case that when Ext.R1(c) and (d) bills were received for the purchases effected by the petitioner, it was revealed that the WPC 28970/09 :3 : amount of purchase exceeded Rs.20,000/- and that, as any purchase beyond Rs.20,000/- was permissible only after inviting quotations as per the provisions of the Stock Purchase Manual, the matter was referred to the superiors. It is stated that thereupon a preliminary enquiry was conducted and that report indicated irregularities on the part of the petitioner and that it was therefore that the petitioner was placed under suspension. 4. From the averments in the counter affidavit, what therefore emerges is that certain irregularities in the purchase of articles were noticed. Preliminary enquiry was conducted and the prima facie material available before the Disciplinary Authority, indicated commission of misconducts. On such prima facie material, the disciplinary authority has decided to place the petitioner under suspension pending further action against him. Such exercise of power is well within the jurisdiction of the disciplinary authority. Of course, it would have been tainted, if the petitioner could successfully establish a case of malfadies. Though certain vague allegations in this respect have been raised as noticed in the earlier portion of this judgment, there is nothing to establish that it was on account of malafides that the petitioner WPC 28970/09 :4 : was placed under suspension. Therefore, I am not persuaded to accept the plea of malafides raised by the petitioner. 5. I should also notice yet another contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner. It is contended that the preliminary enquiry report itself is manipulated, in as much as by Ext.P5, the petitioner was called for a preliminary enquiry on 7/10/2009. However, by Ext.P6, he was informed that the preliminary enquiry has been cancelled. Therefore, the contention raised is that the preliminary enquiry was concluded without hearing the versions of the petitioner. However, in para 11 of the counter affidavit, it is explained that though by Ext.P5 notice, petitioner was called upon to appear on 7/10/2009, he was called on 30/9/2009 and he was given an opportunity to offer his explanation. Therefore, according to the respondents, the plea of the petitioner that preliminary enquiry was conducted without hearing his explanation is incorrect. In the absence of any reply affidavit, or any material to find that this averment in the counter affidavit is incorrect, I have no reason to reject the contention. If so, this contention against the preliminary enquiry also has to fail. 6. On an overall appreciation, I am not persuaded to think WPC 28970/09 :5 : that the power of suspension has been exercised for malafide reasons. When a prima facie case of misconduct has been made out, it is well within the power of disciplinary authority to place an employee under suspension. 7. Be that as it may, the employee cannot be allowed to continue under suspension inordinately. This necessarily calls for an expeditious completion of the disciplinary action, which has to be completed in an impartial manner with opportunity to the petitioner. Therefore, the respondent is directed to take necessary steps for the conclusion of the disciplinary action. Proceedings shall be initiated and completed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 3 months of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 8. Needless to say that the observations made in this judgment are in the context of challenge against Ext.P1 and are not meant or intended to influence the disciplinary authority in the the future course of action it may adopt against the petitioner. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp