IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2008 / 10TH BHADRA 1930 W.P(C).No. 25723 of 2008(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ D. JOHNSON, ASSISTANT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, AND DISTRICT CO-ORDINATOR, TOTAL SANITATION CAMPAIGN, KOZHIKODE (UNDER SUSPENSION). BY ADV. SRI. PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHEER SRI. V. VARGHESE RESPONDENT: ----------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SMT. T.B. REMANI, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------ W.P(C). No. 25723 of 2008 ------------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges Exhibit P1 order, by which he was placed under suspension pending departmental enquiry. Exhibit P1 discloses that the allegations relate to fabrication of false vouchers and claim and receipt of excess travelling allowances beyond limits etc. It is also stated that without the prior sanction of the Government, the petitioner had undertaken official trips outside the state. The petitioner submits that the order of suspension is not warranted and that the Government have acted mechanically and without application of mind, when it passed the order of suspension. The petitioner submits that he has in Exhibit P2 representation dated 18/08/2008, requested the Government to revoke the suspension. I have heard Sri. Pirappancode V.S. Sudheer, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. T.B. Remani, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. As the disciplinary authority has decided to place the petitioner under suspension on the WP(C). No. 25723/ 2008 Page numbers basis of the materials available before it, pending detailed enquiry, it would not be just or proper for this court to sit in appeal over the said decision, in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further, the petitioner has sought a review of the order of suspension invoking Rule 10(6) of the Kerla Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960. In that view of the matter, I dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent to consider Exhibit P2 and pass appropriate orders thereon at the earliest and in any case within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall also be given an opportunity of being heard in person before orders are passed on Exhibit P2. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE scm