IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2008 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 10466 of 2008(U) PETITIONERS: 1. A.T.SREEDEVI, W//O. B.SASI KUMAR AGED 48 YEARS, VILLAGE OFFICER, (UNDER SUSPENSION) PALLAVASAL VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK,RESIDING AT PALAMUTTAM HOUSE, LOCKHART ESTATE, DEVIKULAM PO, IDUKKI. 2. K.N.THULASEEDHARAN,S/O. K.P.NARAYANA PILLAI, AGED 46 YEARS,VILLAGE OFFICER, (UNDER SUSPENSION) KUNCHITHANNI VILLAGE, RESIDING AT KALARIKKAL HOUSE, VELLA THUVAL PO, IDUKKI. 3. JUSTINE PAUL,S/O. K.J.PAUL, AGED 48 YEAR REVENUE INSPECTOR BUILDING TAX (UNDER SUSPENSION) ERNAKULAM, RESIDING AT KURISINGAL HOUSE, KANJIRAM CHIRA, ALAPUZHA. 4. JOY VARGHESE,S/O.C.O.VARGHESE, DEPUTY TAHAZILDAR (UNDER SUSPENSION) KUTTANAD TALUK OFFICE, RESIDING AT CHITTAYAM VIVEKANAD NAGAR, ADIMALI PO, IDUKKI. 5. M.C. SASI KUMAR, S/O. M.P.CHANDRAN NAIR AGED 47 YEARS, VILLAGE OFFICER (UNDER SUSPENSION) KARIMANNOOR, THODUPUZHA TALUK, RESIDING AT ASWATHI BHAWAN, UDUMPANOOR PO,THODUPUZHA. WP(C).No. 10466 of 2008 :: 2 :: 6. K.S. JOSEPH,S/O. K.V.SEBASTIAN, AGED 41 YEARS, VILLAGE OFFICER (UNDER SUSPENSION) CHATHURANGA PARA,UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI, RESIDING AT KOOTIANIYIL HOUSE, NEDUMGANDAM PO THANNIMOODU ,IDUKKI. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENTS: 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE IDUKKI. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.10466 of 2008 ------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioners were suspended from service under Exts.P1 and P2 issued by the Government. The petitioners submit that the orders of suspension are patently unsustainable. According to them, lack of application of mind is inter alia evidenced by the fact that even retired employees are seen placed under suspension in Exts.P1 and P2 orders. It is contended as follows by the petitioners: “The lack of bona fides and non-application of mind by the respondents is further discernible from the fact that even retired employees are seen placed under suspension in the same order. Sri.K.J.Chacko at Serial Number 8 in Ext.P1 is seen placed under suspension through he retired from the service way back as on 31.-8.-2003. Similarly Serial Numbers 1 and 2 in Ext.P2, Sri.K.N.Chandra Sekhara Pillai and Shri George Mathew are seen placed under suspension though they retired much before. It is, therefore, submitted that the respondents are taking a casual approach in placing the petitioners under suspension without ascertaining whether there exist any W.P.(C).NO.10466/08 :: 2 :: rational nexus with the alleged issue of bogus pattas and to what extent the incumbents have contributed for the same.” 2. Some of the officers were later reinstated in service as evidenced by Exts.P3 and P4. In the case of Ext.P3, the incumbent was reinstated taking note of the fact that he was impending retirement. In Ext.P4, the case of the incumbent was considered and then it was noted that there is no material to proceed against him. 3. The petitioners submit that they are remaining under suspension without any justification as such. They had sought for revocation of the suspension as per Ext.P5 series. I heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader. There is no justification in not considering the petitioners' application for revocation of the suspension. There is substance in the contention of the petitioners. The contention of the petitioners that there is no application of mind in passing the orders of suspension, in law, evidenced by the facts mentioned above is also worthy of Government's consideration. W.P.(C).NO.10466/08 :: 3 :: In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 series petitions for revocation of suspension within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If there is a proposal to reject the petitioners' request, they shall also be heard. The petitioners shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge