IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2008 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 8080 of 2008(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ P.M. RAJU, DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, IDUKKI-685 501. BY ADV. SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER SMT.S.LAKSHMY RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003 3. DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003. 4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI-685501. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).8080/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 12th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of suspension passed by the Government on 7.3.2008(produced as Ext.P12 along with I.A.3633/2008, an application for amendment of the writ petition). Petitioner submits that he had joined duty as District Supply Officer only on 29.1.2008. The usual practice in the matter of allotment of required quantity of ration articles for public distribution in a month is that such allotment will be effected by the Director of Civil Supplies during the preceding month itself so as to enable the wholesale distributors to lift the alloted quantity in time. By Ext.P3 dated 23.2.2008, third respondent, the Director of Civil Supplies, allotted the normal as well as the additional quota of rice for the month of March, 2008. But in Ext.P3, according to the petitioner, at variance from the earlier practice, third respondent required the District Supply officer to ensure the lifting of additional/adhoc APL Rice from the FCI by remitting the cost of rice not later than 29.2.2008. Petitioner submits that Ext.P3 was W.P.(C).8080/2008 2 communicated only on 25.2.2008. Ext.P4 proceedings were issued on the same day and instructions were given to the concerned Taluk Supply Officers to see that the authorized wholesale dealers remit the cost of lifting the alloted additional quota of rice, within the prescribed time. Petitioner submits that he was monitoring the steps taken by the concerned Taluk Supply Officers to see that the quantity of rice is lifted in time. The normal quota was lifted within the time stipulated but further time was required for additional quota. Ext.P5 request was addressed to the Controller of Rationing to extend the time for lifting the additional quota and by Ext.P6, time was extended upto 4.3.2008. According to the petitioner, he ensured that the price for the additional 730 MTs was remitted on 29.2.2008 itself. Said additional quota was lifted before 4.3.2008. 2. By Ext.P7 show cause notice was issued to the petitioner requiring an explanation from him as to why he failed to ensure distribution of the allotted quota of ration rice in time. He gave reply vide Ext.P9. But later W.P.(C).8080/2008 3 he came to know from Ext.P10 that he, along with two other District Supply Officers, were suspended. 3. When the matter came up for admission on 10.3.2008, I had directed the learned Government Pleader to hand over a copy of the order of suspension to the petitioner. This was done. I.A.3633/2008 has been filed for amendment of the writ petition, challenging Ext.P12 order as such. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only reason for suspending the petitioner as discernible from Ext.P12 is the alleged delay in lifting additional stock within 29.2.2008. It is based on Ext.P5 request that the time had been extended upto 4.3.2008. Additional quota was actually lifted within the extended time and there is no basis for even assuming that there is any lapse on the part of the petitioner. 5. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions , submits that Ext.P1 order of suspension is purely W.P.(C).8080/2008 4 tentative pending enquiry and the Government itself will consider the plea for revocation. He further submits that tentatively and preliminarily, an administrative lapse on the part of the petitioner has been inferred. Therefore, Government is yet to decide whether enquiry should be instituted or not. In my view, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is appropriate the Government considers the petitioner's explanation, particularly the one with reference to the extension of time for lifting the additional stock and the consequential compliance, within the extended time. Such explanations may be considered by the Government seriously. Therefore, I consider it appropriate that the petitioner moves the Government in the first instance. 6. In the result, writ petition is disposed of in the following terms: 7. If the petitioner files an application for revocation of Ext.P12 suspension order, on or before 18.3.2008, it W.P.(C).8080/2008 5 shall be looked into by the first respondent with specific reference to the contention of the petitioner based upon his request for extension of time for lifting the additional stock that such time was actually granted and that additional stock was actually lifted within the extended time. If there is a proposal to reject the petitioner's plea for revocation, then the petitioner shall be heard in that regard also and orders shall be passed, at any rate, on or before 31.3.2008. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs