IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2009 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 34795 of 2009(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- S.KALADHARAN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY (RETIRED), KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURM, NO.76, SREE SAILAM, N.C.C.NAGAR PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOUSING (A) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. MR.A.JAYASANKAR, SC FOR R1. MRS.ANU SIVARAMAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.34795 of 2009 (T) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 3rd day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was an Assistant Secretary in the Kollam Division of the Kerala State Housing Board. He was an accused in C.C.No.2/2001. Thereupon he was placed under suspension with effect from 23/11/1999, and was reinstated in service on 19/05/2001. Subsequently, he was convicted by the Trial Court and thereupon he was again placed under suspension by order dated 02/02/2002. However, by Ext.P1 judgment in Criminal Appeal No.106/2002 dated 09/02/2007, this Court acquitted the petitioner holding that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt, and holding that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of doubt. 2. Following Ext.P1 judgment, the petitioner was reinstated in service on 16/05/2007. In the meantime, memo of charges was issued, and that was also quashed by this Court in Ext.P2 judgment in WP(C) No.1205/2008 dated 08/02/2008. Still later, the WP(C) No.34795/2009 -2- petitioner attained the age of superannuation and retired from service on 29/02/2008. 3. In view of Ext.P1 judgment acquitting him and Ext.P2 judgment quashing the memo of charges, the petitioner made a request to the authorities to regularise the period of his suspension treating the same as duty for all purposes. That was rejected by Ext.P3 and the appeal filed against the said order was also rejected by Ext.P5 dated 11/08/2009. It is in these circumstances, this writ petition is filed. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that having regard to the fact that he has been acquitted and that even the memo of charges has been quashed, suspension of the petitioner was totally unjustified. It is stated that therefore, the period of his suspension ought to be treated as duty for all purposes. 5. However, the question of the petitioner's suspension period being treated as duty arises only if the suspension can be held as unjustified. This is possible only if the acquittal of the petitioner is a honourable one, which means that the acquittal should be free of all blames. As already noticed, the Trial Court WP(C) No.34795/2009 -3- convicted the petitioner, and this Court in the Criminal Appeal filed by the petitioner, acquitted him giving the benefit of doubt. This evidently shows that the acquittal of the petitioner was not one free from all blames. In such a case, the reasoning given by the authorities in Exts.P3 & P5 that the suspension was not a totally unjustifiable, requiring an order treating the period of his suspension as duty for all purpose, deserves to be upheld. This writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg