IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 26TH OCTOBER 2009 / 4TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 28351 of 2009(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- DR.C.P.ANANDAKRISHNAN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (SUPERINTENDENT), (UNDER ORDER OF SUSPENSION), BUFFALLOE BREEDING FARM,KURIYOTTUMALA, PUNALUR,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, AH (E) DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY DEPARTMENT, VIKAS BHAVAN,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT ANIMAL HUSBANDRY OFFICER, CIVIL STATION,KOLLAM-13. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 28351 OF 2009 (L) ===================== Dated this the 26th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an Assistant Director (Superintendent) in the Animal Husbandry Department. By Ext.P1 order date 22/1/2009, the 2nd respondent placed the petitioner under suspension on allegation of certain misconducts. By Ext.P2 order, 1st respondent ratified the suspension imposed by the 2nd respondent. Subsequently, petitioner has also been charge sheeted as per Ext.P3. 2. In this writ petition, the main grievance raised is regarding the suspension order issued by the 2nd respondent. According to the petitioner, his appointing authority is the 1st respondent and therefore Ext.P1 order of suspension issued by the 2nd respondent is without jurisdiction. 3. In the statement filed on behalf of the 1st respondent, there is no dispute that the first respondent is the appointing authority. However, they only say that the 2nd respondent has exercised the power of suspension in view of Rule 10(2) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, WPC 28351/09 :2 : 1960. According to the 1st respondent, where an order of suspension is made by any authority lower than the Appointing Authority, he shall forthwith report to the Appointing Authority the circumstances in which the order was issued. It is stated that in view of this Rule, a report was made, and by Ext.P2, the 1st respondent has ratified the order of suspension. However, the statement does not say that the 2nd respondent has been empowered by the Government to exercise the power of suspension. A Full Bench of this Court in State of Kerala and another v. C.K.Saseendran (ILR 2009(2) Kerala 193) has held that Sub Rule 2 of Rule 10 prescribes the procedure to be followed when the suspension order emanates from any authority lower than the appointing authority, who has been specifically empowered by the Government. In this case, there is no such empowerment. If that be so, I should accept the contention of the petitioner that Ext.P1 is without jurisdiction. 4. Ext.P1 order of suspension will therefore stand quashed. The 1st respondent shall reinstate the petitioner forthwith, but however, without prejudice to the continuance of WPC 28351/09 :3 : the disciplinary action pursuant to Ext.P3. Petitioner may produce a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp