IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 20TH MAY 2010 / 30TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 13909 of 2010(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.RAJUKUTTY, S/O.UNNUNNI CHACKO, FORESTER (NOW UNDER SUSPENSION), ARIYAMKAVU RANGE, THENMALA DIVISION, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT KALLUVETTAMKUZHI HOUSE, KUNNIKKODE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, SOUTH ZONE, KOLLAM. 3. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, THENMALA. 4. A.K.SALIM, DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, THENMALA. 5. THE RANGE OFFICER, ARIYAMKAVU RANGE, THENMALA. 6. DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, ARIYAMKAVU. SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R-2,3 SRI. M.P. PRAKASH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX Ext.P1. A true copy of the notice regarding the reception of the award during 2008 Ext.P2. A true copy of the suspension order dated 21.4.2010 issued by the 2nd respondent. Ext.P3. A true copy of the petition received by the petitioner from the Adivasees. Ext.P4. A true copy of the medical certificates issued by the Medical Officer, St. Thomas Hospital, Changanassery and Thettikuzhi Hospital, Kunnikodu Ext.P5. A true copy of the news items reported in Deepika daily dated 18.1.2010. Ext.P6. A true copy of the petition filed before the 5th respondent. Ext.P7. A true copy of the petition submitted before the Ist respondent. // TRUE COPY // P.S. to Judge. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.13909 OF 2010 (K) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is working as Forester in Ariyamkavu Range coming under the Thenmala Division. 2. In this writ petition petitioner is challenging Ext.P2, an order issued by the 2nd respondent placing him under suspension, pending disciplinary action. The allegation, on the basis of which order of suspension is issued is that when a medical camp was being conducted by the Ariyamamkavu Tribal Society, petitioner went there in a drunken stage and abused the Medical Officer and his subordinates and obstructed them from discharging their duties. 3. The ground on which Ext.P2 order is challenged is mainly that, it is out of the mala fides of the respondents 3 and 4 that Ext.P2 has been issued. It is also stated that there is absolutely no truth in the allegations levelled against him. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has a clean track record. It is also stated that the petitioner is a sick person and therefore he could not WPC.No. 13909/2010 :2 : have consumed alcohol or misbehaved as alleged in Ext.P2. 4. However, what is disclosed in the counter affidavit is that the Medical Camp was held by the Ariyamkavu Tribal Society at a place outside the area of jurisdiction of the petitioner. In spite of it, without any reason, he went there in a drunken condition and committed the misconducts alleged in Ext.P2. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the complaint in this behalf was received by respondents 3 and 4, which was forwarded to the Range Officer concerned and that the Range Officer conducted enquiry, statements were taken from several people including petitioner and submitted his report to the Divisional Forest Officer. It is stated that the report was forwarded to the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent considered the report and on being prima facie satisfied that misconducts were committed, issued Ext.P2 placing petitioner under suspension. 5. As far as the plea of mala fides against respondents 3 and 4 is concerned, from the facts as disclosed abvoe, it can be seen that all that the DFO has done is that on receipt of the complaint, he ordered an enquiry by the Range Officer and the report received was forwarded to the Conservator for appropriate action. Records do not disclose that he has done anything more than what is WPC.No. 13909/2010 :3 : mentioned above and if that be so, there cannot be any mala fides. 6. From Exts.P6 and P7, the representations made by the petitioner himself, it is evident that the petitioner went to the place where the medical camp was conducted. Admittedly, medical camp in question was conducted in a place outside his jurisdiction and the petitioner had no reason to be there. An enquiry was conducted by the Range Officer. Medical Officer and Panchayat Member were questioned. Petitioner also has given his statement to the Range Officer which also is a fact that is admitted in Ext.P7. The report prima facie disclosed certain acts of misconduct on the part of the petitioner and those allegations are mentioned in Ext.P2. It was considering the gravity of allegations against the petitioner that Ext.P2 has been issued. Thus Ext.P2 prima facie discloses misconducts and if true, these misconducts are serious. In such circumstances if the disciplinary authority has decided in public interest, the delinquent has to be placed under suspension pending disciplinary proceedings, this court cannot sit in appeal over such a decision.. Therefore, Ext.P2 has to be upheld. 7. Be that as it may, it is in the interest of both the parties that the disciplinary proceedings should be expedited and WPC.No. 13909/2010 :4 : concluded on an expeditious basis. 8. Having heard both sides I feel it is only appropriate that the 2nd respondent should conclude the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and final orders should be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Needless to say this will be possible only if the petitioner co-operate with the enquiry. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/