IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 3870 of 2010(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. PETER C.G., AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.LATE GEORGE, CHAALACKAL HOUSE, KOTTEKADU, P.O.KUTTUR, THRISSUR, ASST.ENGINEER, PATTAMBI GRAMA PANCHAYATH - NOW SUSPENSION 2. BEENA S.S., AGED 45 YEARS, W/O.SANTHOSH, KOUSTHUBHAM LIBERTY STATE, PATTAMBY IIIRD GRADE OVERSEER, PATTAMBI GRAMA PANCHAYATH (NOW SUSPENSION). BY ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU SRI.JAGAN GEORGE SRI.P.G.PRAMOD SRI.KANDAMPULLY RAHUL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT (EPB) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, PATTAMBI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PATTAMBI 3. THE TOWN PLANNER, TOWN PLANNING DEPARTMENT, PALAKKAD. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, OTTPALAM. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PATTAMBI. 6. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH, R1, R3 TO R6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P. (C) No. 3870 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The first petitioner is an Assistant Engineer in the Panacherry Grama Panchayat and the second petitioner is IIIrd Grade Overseer in Pattambi Grama Panchayat and they were suspended from service as per Ext.P1 pending disciplinary action. It is challenging the said order that the petitioners have filed this Writ Petition. 2. Ext.P1 carries the allegations based on which they were placed under suspension pending disciplinary action. The main allegation against them pertains to submission of false report for the purpose of granting occupancy certificate even after the receipt of complaint that the building concerned was constructed in violation of building rules. In fact approval of the plan was granted strictly adhering the provisions under the building rules, it is contended. Further contention of the petitioners is that in the light of Ext.P13, there is no scope for the charges levelled against them. According to them since very incident which lead to their WPC.3870 of 2010 : 2 : suspension had occurred in the year 2006 there is no need to place them under suspension or at any rate, there is no reason for continuance of the suspension. It is also contended that the fixation of the boundaries were effected as mentioned in Ext.P13, pursuant to a direction of Ombudsman for the Local Self Government Department. 3. In the light of the specific contentions the learned Government Pleader was directed to make available the approved plan pertaining to the concerned building. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader were not able to assist me in finding the correctness or otherwise of the allegations. The endeavour was only to see whether the allegations against the petitioners, as obtained from Ext.P1 and relied on for placing them under suspension, are per se unsustainable as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners. However, it compelled me to arrive at a conclusion that these are matters requiring consideration by the competent authorities. It is only appropriate for the petitioners to raise all contentions raised herein before the first respondent, relying on the WPC.3870 of 2010 : 3 : approved plan, the report that lead to the issuance of the occupancy certificate, Ext.P13. For that purpose, he may file a review petition against Ext.P1 as provided under the KCS (CCA) Rules. Needless to say that at the time of considering such petition for reviewing the suspension in case the petitioners invoke the remedy, it will be appropriate for the first respondent to consider whether the continuance of the suspension is required in the light of the fact that incident that lead to their suspension had actually occurred in the year 2006. They will be at liberty to file review petitions before the first respondent within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In case of receipt of review petitions within the aforesaid period, in view of the aforesaid specific contentions, I am of the view it will only be appropriate to consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon within three weeks from the date receipt of review petitions. It is ordered accordingly. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma