IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2010 / 15TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 22289 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.V.GOPINATHAN,AGED 48,S/O.VELAYUDHAN, KADAMBANAD HOUSE,KOTHADU PO,ERNAKULAM,NOW R/AT QUARTER NO.11(B)/12,POLICE QUARTERS COMPLEX, THEVARA, PERUMANOOR PO, KOCHI-15. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.MADHU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP BY THE SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, STATE OF KERALA,SECRETARIAT BUILDING, THIRUVANNTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM RANGE. 4. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,COCHIN CITY. 5. ASST.COMMISSIIONER OF POLICE, THRIKHAKHARA. 6. V.G.RAVINDRANTH,CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE(ESTATRE OFFICER, POLICE QUARTERS,THEVARA) ERNAKULAM TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.22289 OF 2010(I) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Exts.P2 and P3 notices. Ext.P2 is a notice issued to the petitioner calling upon him to vacate from the quarter allotted to him. Ext.P3 is an order placing the petitioner under suspension pending disciplinary action. 2. In so far as Ext.P2 is concerned, the said notice has been issued in terms of Rule 24 of the Kerala Police (Family) Quarters Allotment and Occupation Rules 1976. Rule 30 of the Rule provides that a person to whom notice is issued under Rule 24, shall have a right of appeal to the Inspector General of Police . In this case it is seen that aggrieved by Ext.P2 petitioner has already filed Ext.P7 before the 3rd respondent and the said appeal is pending. 3. Having regard to the provisions contained in Rule 30 of the Rules providing an appellate remedy and taking in to account the pendency of Ext.P7, it is directed that the 3rd respondent shall dispose of Ext.P7 with notice to the petitioner and at any rate within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. In the WPC.No.22289 /2010 :2 : meanwhile, further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P2 will be kept in abeyance. 4. In so far as Ext.P3 is concerned, that is an order placing the petitioner under suspension pending disciplinary action against him. The grievance raised by the petitioner is that the said order was passed without conducting any preliminary enquiry. The order of suspension is issued under Rule 7 of the KPDIP & A Rules 1958. The said Rule does not, unlike Rule 6, contemplate any preliminary enquiry for placing a person, against whom disciplinary action is contemplated, under suspension. Therefore on that ground the suspension cannot be invalidated. It is seen that Rule 7(3) provides that a delinquent placed under suspension can move the authority who was issued the order of suspension or any authority to which it is subordinate, for revocation of the suspension. Therefore, leaving it open to the petitioner to seek remedy under Rule 7(3) of the Rules for revocation of the suspension, the writ petition is disposed of. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No.22289 /2010 :3 :