IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2010 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 673 of 2010(H) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.T.SATHYARAJAN EXCISE GUARD (UNDER SUSPENSION) EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, PEERUMEDU,IDUKKI DISTRICT RESIDING AT RAGAVILA HOUSE, MALAGRAM KARUNAPURAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.I.ABDUL SALAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER EXCISE DIVISION OFFICE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. THE DEPUTY EXCISE COMMISSIONER EXCISE DIVISION OFFICE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 673 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is an Excise Guard. He was placed under suspension as per Ext.P1 order dated 03.06.08. Ext.P1 order would reveal that he was placed under suspension pending enquiry and disciplinary action. While the enquiry was going on, a criminal case was registered against him under Sections 332, 224 and 225 r/w S.34 I.P.C and he was remanded to judicial custody by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Nedumkandom from 29.6.2009 to 3.7.2009. The learned Government pleader submitted that in view of the fact that the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody from 29.6.2009 to 13.7.2009 in terms of Rule 10(3) of Kerala Civil Services (C.C & A) Rules, 1960 (for short 'the Rules' only), he should be deemed to have been suspended from the date of detention. Since the petitioner was already been under suspension as per Ext.P1, there was no need to give effect to the same. In the meanwhile, the petitioner has been served with Exts.P2 and P4 memo of charges in respect of certain incidents. It is the contention of the petitioner that even in such circumstances, the respondents are bound to review the W.P.(C) NO.673/2010 2 order of suspension made as per Ext.P1 in terms of paragraph 17 of the Manuel for disciplinary proceedings. At any rate, the petitioner is entitled to approach the respondents under Rule 10(6) of the Rules with a prayer to revoke the order of suspension. Rule 10(6) of the Rules reads thus: “An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule may at any time be revoked by the authority which made or is deemed to have made the order or by any authority to which that authority is subordinate.” 2. A perusal of Rule 10(6) would reveal that the authorities are competent to look into the question of revoking the order of suspension made as per Rules 10(1) and 10(3) of the Rules. Ext.P1 order is passed under Rule 10(1) of the Rules. Thus, as against Ext.P1 and also the order deemed to have been passed under Rule 10(3) of the Rules, the petitioner can approach the competent authority under Rule 10(6). As noticed earlier, even without an application from the petitioner who is under suspension, the respondents are bound to review the order of suspension in terms of paragraph 17 of the Manuel for disciplinary proceedings. In the circumstances, the petitioner may move the second respondent by filing a representation under Rule 10(6) of the Rules. He may do so within a period of two weeks from today. In case such a representation is received, the same shall be considered and orders shall be passed thereon, taking into account the fact that the petitioner was placed under suspension as early as on 5.5.2008 and no periodical review as contemplated under paragraph 17 of the Manuel for disciplinary proceedings W.P.(C) NO.673/2010 3 have been conducted, expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ Petition is disposed of as above. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.673/2010 4 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C). NO.673/2010 JUDGMENT 4th March, 2010