IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 31746 of 2009(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.SAJEEVAKUMAR, ACCOUNTS OFFICER, CAPEX (KERALA STATE CASHEW WORKERS APEX INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.), KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.VENUGOPALAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE CASHEW WORKERS APEX INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. (CAPEX), P.B.NO.262, KADAPPAKKADA, KOLLAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 4. THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE CASHEW WORKERS APEX INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. (CAPEX), P.B.NO.262, KADAPPAKKADA, KOLLAM. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.SREEDHARAN NAIR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. `````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 31746 of 2009 K `````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 6th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an employee of the first respondent Co-operative Society. He aspires for promotion to the post of Finance Manager. But, the Society is not inclined to promote him. Instead, according to the petitioner, they are taking steps to fill up the post by direct recruitment, although no Rules have been framed fixing qualifications for the post. In respect of the same, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition which is pending. While so, there occurred a serious mishap in respect of the Society wherein, in a function organised by the Society, there was food poisoning, which led to 700 people being admitted to hospital. Alleging that the petitioner did not co-operate with the steps for crisis management taken by the Managing Director of the first respondent, by Ext.P7 order, suspended the petitioner on certain allegations of misconduct. According to the petitioner, this is an act of vengeance on the part of the Managing Director in view of the action of the petitioner in approaching this Court by filing a writ petition challenging the steps taken by the Managing WPC.31746/09 : 2 : Director for filling up the post of Finance Manager. He would contend that Ext.P7 is in violation of Rule 198(6) of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Rules, in so far as, under that Rule, an employee can be suspended from service only pending enquiry. According to the petitioner, Ext.P7 does not disclose that the petitioner has been suspended pending enquiry. He also relies on the decision of this Court in Pattanakad Coir Mats & Matting Co- operative Society Ltd. Vs. Project Officer(Coir) [1999 (2) KLT 474] to the effect that, without issuing a formal charge memo, the petitioner could not have been suspended from service. According to him, no charge memo has been issued to him before his suspension. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs:- “ (i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P7. (ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding respondents 2 to 4 to consider and pass orders on the representations Exts.P12 forthwith. (iii) declare that the suspension of the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P7 by the first respondent is patently illegal.” WPC.31746/09 : 3 : 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the first respondent also. 3. Although in Ext.P7 order, it is not specifically mentioned that the suspension is pending enquiry, it is abundantly clear that Ext.P7 has been issued pending enquiry only in so far as the details of the allegations against the petitioner have been given in the suspension order itself. In fact, the decision relied on by the petitioner itself would show that the expression 'charge memo' used in Rule 198(6) does not mean a definite memo of charges, but would only mean that the order of suspension should disclose some material on which the delinquent is sought to be suspended. On a reading of Ext.P7, I am more than satisfied that the same discloses adequate material at least for the purpose of suspending the petitioner pending enquiry. That being so, I do not find anything wrong with Ext.P7 order and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed as without merits. (S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE) aks