IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2011 / 4TH MAGHA 1932 WA.No. 2125 of 2010 --------------------- (AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC.35467/2010 ) APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS IN W.P(C): ------------------------------ 1. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CO-OPERATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER IN W.P.(C) ------------------------------------------- M.G.MADANAMOHAN,ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) (UNDER SUSPENSION), THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. S. MUHAMMED HANEEF THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J. CHELAMESWAR, CJ & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.A.No. 2125 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 24th January, 2011 J U D G M E N T P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J. Whether the learned single Judge has gone wrong in dismissing the I.A. filed by the State/Appellant to vacate the interim order passed earlier intercepting the order of suspension, is the point involved in this appeal. 2. The sequence of facts as narrated in the Writ Petition as well as in the writ Appeal shows that, the petitioner while working as Asst. Registrar (Audit), Mananthavady, which is stated as a gazetted post, was transferred to Thiruvalla and he joined there on 26.04.2010. While so, he was again transferred as Asst. Registrar/Concurrent Auditor, Thalassery Co-operative Rural Bank on 11.11.2010, which, in fact, was challenged by him by filing W.P.(C)No.34730 of 2010, wherein Ext. P7 interim order of stay was passed on 19.11.2010, which is stated as served only on 25.11.2010. In the meanwhile, in connection with various misconducts committed by the delinquent employee, which actually amounted to serious offences, a criminal case had already been registered and final report was submitted by the W.A.No. 2125 OF 2010 2 police under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Taking note of the report of the concerned authorities in this regard, the petitioner was placed under suspension as per order dated 15.11.2010, which, hence, was subjected to challenge by the writ petitioner, stating that it was nothing but arbitrary and malafide. 3. A learned single Judge of this Court passed an interim order dated 29.11.2010 intercepting the suspension. Being aggrieved of the said order, I.A.No. 17113 of 2010 was preferred by the State, seeking to vacate the interim order. After considering the facts and circumstances, the prayer was declined and the I.A. was dismissed, which forms the subject matter of challenge in this appeal. 4. Heard the learned Spl. Government Pleader appearing for the appellant at length, who submits that the misconducts committed by the petitioner are very serious including falsification of accounts and such other offences, particularly under sections 407, 408, 477, 477A r/w. 34 of the IPC and that initiation of appropriate proceedings are very much essential to safeguard the interest of the State. It is pointed out that by virtue of the mandate under the relevant service rules, W.A.No. 2125 OF 2010 3 disciplinary proceedings stand initiated by placing the petitioner under suspension. It is also brought out that the transfer was ordered actually on 11.11.2010, whereas suspension was ordered immediately after going through the report of the concerned authority on 15.11.2010. The interim order intercepting the transfer, as borne by Ext.P7, was passed only on 19.11.2010, serving a copy of the same, later on 25.11.2010. This being the position, there is absolutely no question of malafides on the part of the respondents in the Writ Petition, submits the learned Special Government Pleader. 5. We do not propose to go into the merits of the case for the time being, for the fact that the Writ Petition is still pending. However, going by the undisputed facts as narrated above and also since the petitioner is to retire from the service only on 31.03.2011, there is sufficient time for issuance of charge memo and to take the proceedings to a logical conclusion in the due course. As rightly observed by the learned single Judge in the order dated 29.11.2010, the criminal case was registered in the year 2007 and Ext.P5 final report was submitted on 27.10.2008; while the suspension was ordered only on 15.11.2010. The very W.A.No. 2125 OF 2010 4 purpose of suspension is to see that the delinquent employee does not get a chance to influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence in any manner. The investigation is already complete and the misconducts are in respect of the period 2004- 05. It is the settled position of law, that suspension cannot be a substitute for the punishment. In the above circumstances, we find no ground to interfere with the orders passed by the learned single Judge. The Appeal fails and the same is dismissed accordingly. J. CHELAMESWAR, CHIEF JUSTICE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk