IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2011 / 28TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 22619 of 2011(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- E.M.PREMLAL (JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT) (UNDER SUSPENSION), TALUK OFFICE, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.CHANDRAN SRI.V.RAVEENDRAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. DIRECTOR, VIGILANCE & ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001. 2. LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, REVENUE (D) DEPARTMENT, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001. 3. SUSPENSION REVIEW COMMITTEE (VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT), REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001. 4. M/S.EMMAY PROJECTS PRIVATE LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT PUZHAKKAL, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, REP.BY ITS DIRECTOR, MRS.SHABIRA YUSUF ALI, AGED 48 YEARS, W/O.YUSUF ALI, MUSLIMVEETTIL HOUSE, EMKE MANSION NO.1A, NATTIKA VILLAGE DESOM, P.O.NATTIKA, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR 680506. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. A.J. VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 22619 of 2011(B) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S APPENDIX: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF TH PROCEEDINGS NO. L.R.D 27745/10 DATED 6.9.2010 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 6.12.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 6.5.1988 IN RESPECT OF THE 9½ CENTS PROPERTY POSSESSED BY SRI. VALSAN EXT.P3(a) : TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 29.8.1992 IN RESPECT OF THE 9½ CENTS PROPERTY POSSESSED BY SRI. VALSAN EXT.P3(b) : TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 1.2.1993 IN RESPECT OF THE 9½ CENTS PROPERTY POSSESSED BY SRI. VALSAN EXT.P3(c) : TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 10.10.2005 IN RESPECT OF THE 9½ CENTS PROPERTY POSSESSED BY SRI. VALSAN EXT.P3(d) : TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 29.6.2006 IN RESPECT OF THE 9½ CENTS PROPERTY POSSESSED BY SRI. VALSAN EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER DATED 3.5.2011 TO EXT.P2 EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25.7.2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXT.P6 : RUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO. 702/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, THRISSUR EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT CMP NO. 73/2009 BEFORE THE COURT OF TH ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE (VIGILANCE), THRISSUR RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE jma C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 22619 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was placed under suspension as per Ext.P1 order dated 6.9.2010 while working as Junior Superintendent in Taluk Office, Chavakkad. The order of suspension was issued taking into account the fact that a vigilance case No.11/2010/TSR was registered against him under section 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with section 465, 468 and 120(B) of Indian Penal Code. Since the respondents have not taken any action to review the order of suspension for a long period the petitioner has submitted Ext.P4 representation on 3.5.2011 requesting the respondents to revoke the suspension and to reinstate him in service. The same was considered by the Suspension Review Committee on 21.5.2011 and the decision of the committee was communicated to the petitioner as per Ext.P5 dated 25.7.2011. It is stated thereunder that Suspension Review Committee convened on 21.5.2011 took a decision not to reinstate the petitioner into the service. It is in the said WPC.No.22619/2011 : 2 : circumstances that this writ petition has been filed mainly challenging Ext.P1 order of suspension and seeking for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent to re-consider Exts.P2 and P4 and pass a speaking order considering all aspects explained by the petitioner in Ext.P2. Essentially, the contention of the petitioner is that Ext.P5 would not reveal a proper application of mind. In the facts and circumstances whether the continued suspension of the petitioner is required or not was not at all considered, with application of mind, it is contended. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in view of clause 17 of the manual of disciplinary proceedings, the committee is bound to review the order of suspension on every six months. Ext.P5 would reveal that the suspension review committee met and considered the case of the petitioner on 21.5.2011. The contention of the petitioner is that the consideration contemplated thereunder is a consideration after taking into account all the attending circumstances. However, Ext.P5 would reveal a total non-application of mind and not a mere mechanical consideration. As already noticed, the petitioner WPC.No.22619/2011 : 3 : was placed under suspension on 6.9.2010 and consideration culminated in Ext.P5 was made on 21.5.2011 and taking into account the contentions raised by the petitioner as above, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 3rd respondent, in terms of clause 17 of the manual of disciplinary proceedings, to conduct the next review immediately after six months from 21.5.2011. While considering the question of review of Ext.P1 order of suspension the review committee shall consider the issue with application of mind in to all aspects and attending circumstances. With the said observation, this writ petition is disposed of. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observation with respect to the merits of the claim for reinstatement. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge