IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2010 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 7865 of 2010(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.SHAMSUDHEENKUTTY S/O MOHAMMED KUNJU, AGED 54 YEARS, VEHICLE SUPERVISOR, K.S.R.T.C., KOTTARAKKARA AND RESIDING THENGUVILA PUTHENVEEDU, KOTTANKARA, CHANDANATHOPPE P.O., KOALLAM-14. BY ADV. SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP.,BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (VIG.), KSRTC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KSRTC, KOTTARAKKARA. SC FOR R1 SRI.V.V.N.NAMBIAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.7865 OF 2010 (G) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P1, an order passed by the 2nd respondent placing the petitioner under suspension, pending disciplinary action. Petitioner is a vehicle Supervisor in the Kottarakara Depot of the first respondent. It is on the allegation that, on 17.2.2010, the petitioner misbehaved to the Zonal Officer and made certain remarks which were contemptuous of the superior officers, that the petitioner has been placed under suspension, pending disciplinary action. 2. According to the petitioner, on 17.2.2010, the date on which the alleged incident had happed, as he was feeling sick, he reported to the hospital at 7 a.m. and thereafter came to his work place. It is alleged that an incident of the type as alleged has not happened. It is also his case that, even if any misconduct has been committed, unless public interest and gravity of the misconduct deserves, the employee should not be placed under suspension as a matter of routine. WPC.No. 7865/2010 :2 : 3. The truth or otherwise of the allegations constituting the misconduct is a matter for enquiry to be conducted by the disciplinary authority. At this stage, the question is whether Ext.P1 order of suspension justified. A reading of Ext.P1 shows that the allegation is that the petitioner has misbehaved to the Zonal Officer and made certain statements which are contemptuous of the superior officers. It is stated that a person working in the Supervisory cadre has to be a model for others and by the aforesaid act, he committed a grave misconduct warranting disciplinary action and therefore he was placed under suspension. 4. Discipline is an internal matter, which is to be regulated by the orders of the disciplinary authority and when the disciplinary authority has, on the allegations made in Ext.P1, decided that the petitioner should be placed under suspension, this court will not be justified in imposing its view, on the views expressed by the disciplinary authority. Therefore I do not think that Ext.P1 order of suspension warrants interference on that ground. 5. However, there is substance in the case of the petitioner that since he is due for retirement on 31.7.2010, disciplinary WPC.No. 7865/2010 :3 : enquiry should be expedited and concluded. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to expedite the disciplinary enquiry pursuant to Ext.P1 and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible and at any rate thin 3 months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/