IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2008 / 20TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 23033 of 2008(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ STANLY JOHN, DRIVER (HC E6794),MT WING AR CAMP, KOCHI CITY (UNDER SUSPENSION), S/O.CHRISTUDAS, AGED 45, ANTHIKATTIL HOUSE, ELOOR EAST, UDYOGAMANDAL.P.O,-683501. BY ADV. SRI.S.SHYAM RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, STATE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CENTRAL ZONE, ENRKULAM. 3. CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, COCHIN CITY. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.R. SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No. 23033 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 11th August, 2008 J U D G M E N T I have heard Sri.S.Shyam, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.M.R. Sreelatha, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing on notice for respondents. The petitioner, who is a Police Constable (Driver) in the Kerala Police, was placed under suspension by Exhibit-P7 order dated 17.7.2008 issued by the Commissioner of Police, Kochi City. The petitioner challenges Exhibit-P7 on the ground that it has been issued without application of mind and based on a complaint filed against him by a history sheeter. The learned Senior Government Pleader submits that the petitioner has filed Exhibit-P8 appeal before the Inspector General of Police, Central Zone, Ernakulam under Rule 22 of the Kerala Police Departmental Inquiry, Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1968 and that as the W.P ( C) No. 23033 of 2008 2 petitioner has invoked the alternate remedy, he is not entitled to any relef in this writ petition. 2. I have considered the submissions at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. In my considered opinion as the petitioner has already invoked the appellate remedy and the appellate authority is seized of the matter, it would not be proper for this Court to adjudicate upon the rival contentions at this stage. However, the appellate authority cannot delay the disposal of Exhibit-P8 appeal, which is a statutory remedy available to the petitioner. I therefore dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the second respondent to consider Exhibit-P8 appeal and pass orders thereon, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No. 23033 of 2008 3 W.P ( C) No. 23033 of 2008 4