IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2010 / 12TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 22698 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. THRIDEEP KUMAR M.P , AGED 45, M.K.PURUSHOTHAMAN, ASSISTANT ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, HEAD OFFICE, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PATTOM PO, THIRUVANANTHAURAM 695 004. 2. ALEXANDER GEORGE, AGED 41, S/O.DR.P.G.GEORGE, ASSISTANT ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, DISTRICT OFFICE, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, ALAPPUZHA PIN 688 013. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM SMT.K.P.AMBIKA SMT.A.M.FASEENA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHPURAM 695 004. 2. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004. REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY. ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS,SC,POLL.C.BOAR FOR R THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.22698 OF 2010(J) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P12, an order issued by the first respondent placing the petitioners under suspension pending disciplinary action against them. 2. Petitioners are Assistant Environmental Engineers working under the 2nd respondent. The first petitioner is the President and the 2nd petitioner is a member, of an Association by name Kerala State Pollution Control Board Employees Association. 3. It is stated that on 15th July, 2010, a notice with the title “നമക യ ജ ച പവര ക ”purrported to be published by the petitioners herein, a copy of which is Ext.P10 was issued to some of the officers of the Board. On coming to know of Ext.P10, the first respondent issued Ext.P9 notice to the petitioners requiring them to report, not later than 12 noon on 16th of July 2010, as to whether they were responsible for the issuance of Ext.P10. 4. According to the first petitioner, on receipt of Ext.P9, in order to submit Ext.P11 explanation he reported at the office of the first respondent at 11.45 a.m. on 16.7.2010. It is stated that WPC.No.22698 /2010 :2 : since the first respondent had a visitor, he could not enter the chamber of the first respondent and that by the time the visitor left the office it was 12.30.p.m. It is stated that thereupon he met the first respondent and that the respondent declined to accept Ext.P11 explanation, stating that the time allowed for submitting the explanation had already expired. It is stated that immediately thereafter, the first respondent issued Ext.P12 order placing the petitioners under suspension with immediate effect, in terms of Rule 7(1) of the Kerala State Pollution Control Board Service Disciplinary Rules. It is this order which is under challenge in this writ petition. 5. The first contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that petitioners, being the office bears and the member of the Staff Association, were fighting against the corruption and the other maladministration at the instance of the first respondent. It is stated that Exts.P2,P3,P4, P6 and P7 are some of the notices and circulars issued by them and that on account of the above, the Ist respondent was awaiting for an opportunity to wreck vengeance on them. According to the petitioners it was only on account of the vengeance of the first respondent and not in public interest, that by Ext.P12 order they were placed under suspension. It is also WPC.No.22698 /2010 :3 : contended that Ext.P12 order was not preceded by any preliminary enquiry and therefore the petitioners did not get any opportunity to urge their contentions before they were placed under suspension. It is also contended that though the petitioners wanted to file their explanation to Ext.P9 notice, they could not file the reply for reasons not attributable to them. Counsel also invited my attention to Exts.P13 and P14 to contend that even the Board order to place its employees under suspension were not implemented by the fist respondent and that his endeavor was only to protect his favourites. 6. The first respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit refuting the allegations in the writ petition. According to the first respondent, when baseless allegations were leveled in Ext.P10 notice circulated in the various offices of the 2nd respondent, and as the notice carried the names of the petitioners as the persons who had published the notice, they were issued Ext.P9 notice calling upon them to explain whether they own responsibility for the publication. It is stated that petitioners did not submit any explanation to Ext.P9. It is also stated that coupled with the refusal of the petitioners to submit explanation to Ext.P9, as the conduct WPC.No.22698 /2010 :4 : of the petitioners prima facie spelt out misconducts in terms of the Conduct Rules, Ext.P12 order placing them under suspension was issued , pending further disciplinary action against them. It is stated that such action was warranted in order to maintain discipline and prestige of the office and therefore this court shall not interfere with such order. 7. I have considered the submissions made. A reading of Ext.P10 shows that serious allegations have been raised against the functioning of the establishment as a whole and the first respondent in particular. It also carries the name of the petitioners as the persons who were instrumental for the publication of Ext.P10. It was on publication of Ext.P10, that Ext.P9 notice was issued by the first respondent calling upon the petitioners to explain whether they own responsibility for the issuance of Ext.P10. The first petitioner states that he was ready with Ext.P11 explanation to Ext.P9 and that he could not submit the same before the prescribed time, only on account of the fact that he could not gain entry in to the chamber of the first respondent as Chairman was busy with other visitor. This allegation has been denied by the Chairman in paragraphs 6,7 and 8 of the counter affidavit filed by him. In the reply affidavit filed by the WPC.No.22698 /2010 :5 : petitioners, in paragraph 3 to 7, petitioners have disputed the assertion made by the Chairman in his counter affidavit. The claim made by the Ist petitioner and countered by the Ist respondent is a seriously disputed question of fact and in tis proceedings, this court is not in a position to go into such a disputed question of fact. Even otherwise this will be an issue arising for consideration, if further action is initiated against the petitioners and therefore, it may not be proper to pronounce on this question, at this stage. 8. A reading of Ext.P12 shows that the allegations based on which the petitioners are proposed to be proceeded against are violations of Rule 33(a),34 and 36 of the Conduct Rules. If these allegations are found to be true, they are misconducts and if an employee has committed such misconducts, he is certainly liable to be visited with penalty. When such allegation of misconducts have been leveled against employees who are high ranking officers and if the disciplinary authority has, on an assessment of the situation, decided to place the delinquent under suspension, this court should not interfere with such administrative decision taken by the disciplinary authority. Of course, if the petitioners could WPC.No.22698 /2010 :6 : establish that the power of suspension has been exercised in an arbitrary manner or for mala fide reasons, certainly this court will be justified in interfering with the order of suspension. In this case, relying on Exts.P2,P3,P4,P6 and P7, it was contended that, Ext.P12 order is vitiated for mala fide reasons. Although it is true that some of these publications are at the instance of the petitioners, there is nothing directly linking these publications with Ext.P12. In such case, on the materials produced, this court is not in a position to conclude that Ext.P12 is vitiated for reasons which are mala fide in nature. 9. The surviving contention is whether a preliminary enquiry was necessary before exercising the power of suspension. Counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that there is no rule in the Conduct Rules providing that a preliminary enquiry should be conducted. In such case, this court will not be justified in finding fault with the disciplinary authority in having not conducted a preliminary enquiry before issuing the order of suspension. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No.22698 /2010 :7 :