IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2008 / 27TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 24806 of 2008(C) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.SUKUMARAN, VILLAGE EXTENSION OFFICER, BLOCK OFFICE,KOOTHUPARAMBA , KANNUR R/AT.GOKULAM KOTTAKUZHI NELLIMOODU PO., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. COMMISSIONER FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONERATE OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT L.M.S. COMPOUND, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. JOINT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONERATE OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, L.M.S. COMP0UND, THIRUVANANTHAPUTRAM. 3. ASST.DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER(GENERAL) PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. DISTRICT PERFORMANCE AUDIT OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF FOVERNMENT(RURAL DEVELOPMENT) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.R.SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.Ravindran, J. ================== W.P(C).No.24806 of 2008 ===================== Dated this the 18th day of August, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is presently working as Village Extension Officer. By Ext.P1 order dated 20.7.2005, he was placed under suspension pending enquiry. Later, Ext.P2 memo of charges and Ext.P3 statement of allegations of misconduct were issued on 25.8.2005. The petitioner submitted Ext.P4 reply. By Ext.P5, an Enquiry Officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer conducted an enquiry. After enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted Ext.P10 report. The petitioner was thereafter reinstated in service by Ext.P7 order dated 16.12.2007. In Ext.P10, the Enquiry Officer held that a prima facie case has been made out against the petitioner that he has committed offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code. The Enquiry Officer thereupon recommended vigilance enquiry into the allegations against the petitioner. The first respondent forwarded a copy of Ext.P10 to the petitioner along with Ext.P9 letter. The petitioner thereupon submitted Ext.P11 representation wherein he contended that the Enquiry Officer's report should be rejected and he should be exonerated of all the charges. The first respondent thereafter issued Ext.P12 show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the punishment of WP(C)24806/08 -: 2 :- reduction to a lower grade should not be imposed and the sum of Rs.6,69,445/- with 12% interest should not be recovered from him. The petitioner has submitted Ext.P13 representation. This Writ Petition is filed contending that the entire procedure adopted by the first respondent is contrary to Rule 15 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1960. 2. Having heard Sri.Murali Purushothaman, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the challenge to Ext.P10 and Ext.P12 is premature. The petitioner alleges that the procedure adopted in the enquiry is not in accordance with rules. If Ext.P12 is not in tune with the rules, the petitioner can challenge the decision of the disciplinary authority in appeal before the appellate authority. In the result, the Writ Petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and his right to challenge the decision taken by the first respondent pursuant to Ext.P12 in other appropriate proceedings. . P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 19/8