IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 30TH OCTOBER 2008 / 8TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 30043 of 2008(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- E.KUNHIMAYIN, JOINT BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER (RSE), CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR (UNDER SUSPENSION) RESIDING AT ELEYEDATH HOUSE, KAITHAKKAL, PANAMARAM P.O.,WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, COMMISSIONERATE OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER (GENERAL), WAYANAD. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ================= W.P.(C).No.30043 of 2008 - B =============================== Dated this the 30th day of October, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner, a Joint Block Development Officer, who is presently working in the Rural Development Department, was placed under suspension by Ext.P3 order dated 8.9.2008, passed by the Commissioner of Rural Development. Ext.P3 is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner contends that the allegations levelled against him in Ext.P3 are false and that on trumped up charges he has been placed under suspension. 2. Ext.P3 recites that a complaint was received against the petitioner accusing him of misbehaving to ladies in an inebriated state. It is also seen from Ext.P3 that a preliminary enquiry has been held and that the Additional Development Commissioner, Wayanad had submitted a report. It was based on the said report that the petitioner was placed under suspension. In my considered opinion, the decision taken by the second respondent to place the petitioner under suspension pending detailed enquiry into the complaint against him cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. W.P.(C).No.30043 of 2008 - B 2 3. Further, Rule 22 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1960, entitles the petitioner to challenge the order of suspension in appeal before the appellate authority. Rule 31 of the said Rules provides that in an appeal from an order of suspension, the appellate authority shall consider whether having regard to the circumstances of the case, the order of suspension was justified or not. The petitioner therefore has an effective and meaningful alternate remedy. 4. In such circumstances, I am not inclined to admit the writ petition. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. It is made clear that if the petitioner files an appeal before the competent appellate authority within the time limit stipulated in Rule 25 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, control and Appeal) Rules 1960, the appellate authority shall consider the appeal and pass orders thereon within one month from the date of receipt of such appeal, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The petitioner's contentions on the merits are left open. W.P.(C).No.30043 of 2008 - B 3 After the writ petition was dismissed Sri.Grashious Kuriakose, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner brought to my notice that the petitioner was working at Chavakad when Ext.P3 order was passed, that the order of suspension states that he is at Kalpetta and that this will result in non payment of subsistence allowance to him. It is for the petitioner to bring this fact to the notice to the Commissioner, Rural Development who shall take effective steps to ensure that subsistence allowance is paid to the petitioner, at the rate he is entitled to, in accordance with the Rules governing the same. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE bkn/-