IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2009 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 2167 of 2009(G) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SAM CHRISTY DANIEL, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALLEPPEY (UNDER SUSPENSION) KUDAMPULICKAL HOUSE, MUTTOM, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. MR.T.R.RAJESH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVNANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CBCID, ERNAKULAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN FOR R THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.2167 of 2009 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of April, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is an officer in the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police under the second respondent. He is aggrieved by the order of suspension passed on 13.05.2008 under Rule 7(1)(a) of KPDIP & A Rules. Ext.P2 is the said order. Petitioner submits that he had not indulged in any activities, alleged therein warranting his suspension. It is pointed out that he has not been arrayed as an accused in any crime. Accordingly it is contended that the suspension order is passed without any justification. 2. In the statement filed by the respondents it is pointed out that petitioner had been found to have close contacts with Santhosh Madhavan @ Swami Amritha Chaithanya and even known to have unofficially mediated in disputes involving Santhosh Madhavan. There were reports that the Interpol had issued red corner notice against Santhosh Madhavan for his involvement as accused in Crime committed abroad. It is further averred that the conduct of the petitioner was unbecoming of a Senior Police Officer who should have taken wpc: 2167/2009 2 proper care and caution before associating with a person of suspicious character. The conduct of the petitioner attracted wide spread criticism against police and it invited adverse remarks to the department and tarnished the image of the police. 3. It is revealed from the statement that the Superintendent of Police, CBCID, Ernakulam was authorized to conduct the oral enquiry against the petitioner under Rule 8(1)(iii) and 8(2) of Kerala Police Departmental Inquiries, Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1958 vide G.O.(Rt)2231/08 Home dated 11.07.2008. The enquiry Officer was authorised to submit the PR minutes within two months. The enquiry against the petitioner has not been completed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has not received any information so far. It is pointed out that the 3rd respondent has already retired from service also. 5. The learned Government Pleader submits that another enquiry officer has been appointed already. Whether the petitioner has to be reinstated in service pending the enquiry is entirely a matter for the respondents 1 and 2 to decide. The petitioner has filed Ext.P9 before the 1st respondent seeking for appropriate orders in the matter. wpc: 2167/2009 3 There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P9 in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Since the enquiry has not started so far, there will be a direction to the second respondent to expedite the enquiry in the meanwhile. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE bps