IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD APRIL 2008 / 14TH CHAITHRA 1930 RP.No. 429 of 2008() -------------------- REVIEW PETITIONER/IST RESPONDENT ------------------------------- K.M.ABDUL RASHEED ,REGISTRAR, KANNUR UNIVERSITY, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. A.T. BAPPU MUSALIAR, KADIYARAKATH HOUSE P.O. FAROOK COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE KANNUR UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS FINANCE OFFICER KANNUR UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, MANGATTUPARAMBA, KANNUR 2. THE SYNDICATE OF THE KANNUR UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS FINANCE OFFICER KANNUR UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, MANGATTUPARAMBA, KANNUR 3. JAMES MATHEW, MEMBER-SYNDICATE KANNUR UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, MANGATTUPARAMBA, KANNUR. R1&R2- BY ADV. SRI.M.SASEENDRAN,SC,KANNUR UNIVERSITY R3-BY ADV.SRI.K. GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N. RAVINDRAN, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------------- R.P.NO.429 OF 2008 in W.A.NO.625 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2008. O R D E R Balakrishnan Nair, J: Heard the learned counsel on both sides. This is a review petition filed by the 1st respondent in the writ appeal seeking review of the interim order passed by this Court whereunder, this Court directed the 1st respondent/review petitioner to go on leave for two months pending completion of the enquiry against him. Ext.P25 decision of the Syndicate would show that the 1st respondent/review petitioner was suspended in contemplation of the enquiry against him. This is further evident from Ext.P26 and also the pleadings in the counter affidavit of the University at Paragraphs 17 and 18. The enquiry contemplated as per Exts.P25 and P26 has already been completed and the three member committee, which was appointed to enquire into the allegations against the review petitioner/1st respondent , has already submitted its report on 24.3.2008. Based on that report, it is to be decided whether any disciplinary action is necessary and if a R.P.NO.429/2008 . 2 decision is taken to initiate disciplinary action, the charge sheet has to be served on the review petitioner. If his explanation is not satisfactory, a formal enquiry has to be held for which the inquiring authority has to be appointed by the disciplinary authority. 2. We, while passing the impugned order, proceeded on the footing that the suspension was ordered in contemplation of the disciplinary proceedings. The standing counsel for the appellant asserted before us that the suspension has been ordered in contemplation of the disciplinary proceedings against the Registrar. But the facts would show that the formal decision to take disciplinary action and to serve formal charge sheet on the review petitioner/1st respondent is yet to be taken. A preliminary enquiry preceding such formal decision has only taken place now. So, at that stage, it is not permissible to suspend the review petitioner. Further, the enquiry in contemplation of which he has been suspended is already over. Therefore, we feel that the continued suspension of the review petitioner is unwarranted. So, the review petition seeking recalling of the interim order is liable to be allowed. It is ordered accordingly. The interim order passed by this Court is recalled. But, after formal disciplinary action is launched against the R.P.NO.429/2008 . 3 review petitioner, if it is found necessary to keep the review petitioner out of office, the University will be free to move this Court for appropriate orders. The review petition is disposed of as above. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. cl