IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2010 / 16TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 37641 of 2009(A) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- ROY WILFRED, JUNIOR HEALTH INSPECTOR GRADE II, P.H.C. SHOLAYUR, PALAKKAD. BY ADVS. MR.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, MR.K.M.ANEESH, MR.K.SANTHOSH KUMAR (KALIYANAM). RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO HEALTH DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, (PUBLIC HEALTH), DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH, PALAKKAD. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/01/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.37641 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as a Junior Health Inspector Grade-II. As per Ext.P8 proceedings, he has been placed under suspension pending disciplinary action. 2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had been sending false and fabricated complaints against a lady collegue of his. He is also alleged to be in the habit of creating obstructions to his co- workers as well as superior officers in the discharge of official duties. An enquiry was conducted by the Additional Director of Health Services(Vigilance) on 16.10.2009 on a complaint that was submitted by the wife of the petitioner. The said complaint was that the District Medical Officer was harassing her and her family and therefore she requested sanction for prosecuting the DMO. On the basis of the above, as well as other complaints sent by the petitioner, disciplinary action has been initiated against the petitioner and he has been placed under suspension. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the Wpc 37641/09 2 allegations against him are false and that the suspension is absolutely unjustified. 3. The petitioner is only suspended pending disciplinary action against him. The petitioner will get sufficient opportunity to prove his innocence in the disciplinary enquiry that is to follow. Suspension does not cause any stigma on an employee and is not punitive in nature. There are no grounds to interfere with the order of suspension now passed. The writ petition fails and is therefore dismissed. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk