IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2008 / 26TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 37653 of 2007(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ A.ARUN KUMAR, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KASARAGOD-671 123. BY ADV. SRI.B.RAGUNATHAN SRI.V.V.MATHEW SRI.R.SRINATH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).37653/2007 -------------------- Dated this the 16th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the Deputy Director of Education and he is aggrieved by Ext.P1 order passed by the Government by which he has been placed under suspension, pending enquiry. Ext.P1 order of suspension refers to a complaint by the District Panchayath president and a preliminary enquiry by the Director of Public Instructions. Allegation against the petitioner is that there has been gross negligence on his part in making suitable arrangements for the students and in providing other basic requirements of the students who had participated in 2007 School Games Northern Range and also in making arrangements for the lodging of the officials and taking appropriate action. There is a further allegation that there has been negligence on the part of the petitioner in ensuring the participation of people's representatives in the various programmes. W.P.(C).37653/2007 2 2. When the matter came up on 18.12.2007, I had directed the learned Government Pleader to produce the files. I had perused the files when it was produced before me on 3.1.2008, and I could find that pursuant to the complaint sent by the District Panchayath President, Kasargode, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Director of Public Instructions and apparently there was a recommendation that disciplinary action be initiated against the petitioner as also the District Educational Officer and the District Revenue Secretary. Counsel for the petitioner then submitted that apparently no action as such has been taken against the said two officials and that the petitioner alone has been placed under suspension. Learned Government Pleader was required to get instructions on those aspects and accordingly when the matter was taken up today, learned Government Pleader submitted, on instructions, that the Government has decided to take disciplinary action against the other two officials also and memo of charges has been issued to W.P.(C).37653/2007 3 them. Memo of charges will be issued to the petitioner shortly. Matter requires a detailed enquiry, in as much as, according to the Government there has been gross negligence on the part of the petitioner in taking appropriate steps to ensure the smooth conduct of the games. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the power to place a Government servant under suspension conferred on the Government under Rule 10 of the KCS (CC & A) Rules, 1960, is not to be exercised casually. He relied on the decision of this Court in Muhammed v. State of Kerala (1997 (2) KLT 394) and submitted that the order of suspension must be based on objective consideration of relevant factors. He further submits that the order of suspension in this case has been issued with an objective of satisfying the President of the District Panchayath, Kasargode, and therefore, it must be treated as an order based on extraneous considerations warranting W.P.(C).37653/2007 4 interference by this Court. 4. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. B. Raghunathan and the learned Government Pleader Mr.Bejoy Chandran. As mentioned above, I had perused the files on 3.1.2008. 5. On going through Ext.P1 and having perused the files, I am unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there has been no objective consideration of the relevant circumstances by the Government, while issuing Ext.P1 order of suspension. No doubt, the ball was set in motion on a complaint of the President of the District Panchayath, Kasargode, but it cannot be said that suspension was only on the basis of the said complaint. There was a preliminary enquiry by the Director of Public Instructions. The files had been seen by the Secretary of the Government and even by the Minister for Education. I am not in a position to accept the submission that W.P.(C).37653/2007 5 there was haste shown by the Government apart from non application of the mind to the relevant circumstances. 6. In the circumstances, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the order of suspension. But I make it clear that it will be open to the petitioner to seek a revocation of suspension under Rule 10(6) of the Rules. If an application is made to that effect, it will be incumbent on the part of the Government to consider the same and the observations made in this judgment will not stand in the way of the Government considering such an application as and when it is filed, in accordance with law. Subject to this right of the petitioner, the Writ Petition is dismissed. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs