IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2010 / 18TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 14333 of 2010(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUNIL.S,S/O.C.SADANANDAN,AGED 42 YEARS, ACCOUNTANT (UNDER SUSPENSION),THAVANNUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH(RESIDNG AT MARUTHA MANDIRAM, ERUNNOOTTIL, PO.VATTATHAMARA,KADAKKAL-KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 536). BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT SECTION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT SECTION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT SECTION,KALLARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. THE SECRETARY, KALLARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).14333/2010 -------------------- Dated this the 8th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Exts.P1 and P10 are under challenge in this writ petition. By Ext.P1, petitioner has been placed under suspension and by Ext.P10, his request for revocation of suspension was rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that subsequent to Ext.P10, Government have issued Ext.P11 modifying Ext.P1 and clarifying that the Government have not suffered any loss on account of the allegations levelled against him. It is also pointed out that the grounds on which the petitioner was placed under suspension are either concerned with the duties not discharged by the petitioner or due to some inadvertent ommission on his part. He therefore contended that suspension was unwarranted and that the request for revocation of suspension, should have been allowed. 3. The fact that the misconducts did not result in any loss to the W.P.(C).14333/10 2 Government by itself is not a reason to hold that suspension of a Government servant is impermissible. As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are at best only an inadvertent ommission is concerned, these are the defenses available to a delinquent which are to be urged as and when the proceedings are initiated against him. Same is the position regarding the contention that these were duties discharged by them. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not think that Exts.P1 or Ext.P10 are to be interfered with in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Be that as it may, having regard to the fact that the disciplinary action on the basis of which a Government servant has been placed under suspension, should be finalized on an expeditious basis, I direct the respondents to conclude the proceedings contemplated against the petitioner. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months of production of a copy of this judgment. W.P.(C).14333/10 3 5. Needless to say that this judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioner to seek review of his suspension, if it is permissible in law. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs