IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2008 / 17TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 23999 of 2008(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ C. VIJAYAN, ASSISTANT DISTRICT CO-ORDINATOR (IEC), TOTAL SANITATION CAMPAIGN, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU RESPONDENT: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.R.SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J ------------------- W.P.(C).23999/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 8th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as Assistant District Co- ordinator on deputation from the post of Joint Block Development Officer. By Ext.P1 order passed on 31.7.2008, he, along with the District Co-ordinator, was placed under suspension pending disciplinary enquiry. The petitioner has thereupon filed Ext.P2 Review Petition under Rule 35 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960 seeking a review of the order of suspension. The petitioner contends that the allegations levelled against him for placing him under suspension are not tenable for the reason that he was only the Assistant District Co-ordinator and had no financial or administrative powers. No grounds exist to place him under suspension, it is contended. 2. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. As the disciplinary authority has decided to place the petitioner under suspension on the materials available W.P.(C).23999/2008 2 with it, pending further enquiry, it would not be just or proper for this Court to sit in appeal over the said decision in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner also has not alleged that the suspension is malafide or that it is otherwise vitiated. Further, the petitioner has also invoked the remedy available to him under Rule 35 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960. In that view of the matter I dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to consider Ext.P2 and pass appropriate orders thereon, at the earliest and in any case within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner may also be afforded an opportunity of being heard in person before orders are passed on Ext.P2. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge mrcs