IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 26TH JULY 2010 / 4TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23276 of 2010(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- P.M.VASUDEVAN, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.LATE K.MADHAVAN NAIR, SUPERINTENDENT (UNDER SUSPENSION), SREE MANGOTTUKAVU DEVASWOM, ATHIPOTTA, PALGHAT DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.MANOJ RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO REVENUE (DEVASWOM) DEPARTMENT, STATE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 695 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, ERANJIPALAM, KOZHIKODE, 673 001. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, ERANJIPALAM, KOZHIKODE, 673 001. 4. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SREE MANGOTTUKAVU DEVASWOM, ATHIPOTTA, PALGHAT 678 544. 5. THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT, STATE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 695 001. 6. THE FIT PERSON, THE SREE MANGOTTUKAVU BHAGAVATHY TEMPLE, ATHIPOTTA, PALAKKAD, 678 544. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. ARAVINDKUMAR BABU SRI. K.MOHANAKANNAN, SC, THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.23276 of 2010 (H) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 26th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a Superintendent at Mangottukavu Sree Bhagavathi Temple in Palakkad District. Based on Ext.P1 vigilance report and consequential directions issued pursuant to the orders passed by the 2 nd respondent, the 4 th respondent has issued Ext.P3 order dated 13/06/2010 placing the petitioner under suspension. Against the said order, he has filed Ext.P4 before the 3 rd respondent and Ext.P5 before the 1 st respondent. 2. In this writ petition, although, the petitioner has raised several contentions against Ext.P3 order placing him under suspension itself, still having regard to the fact that statutory remedies have already been invoked by the petitioner, I do not think it necessary for this Court to go into the merits of the contentions raised. 3. Insofar as Ext.P4 is concerned, having regard to the fact that Ext.P3 order of suspension itself refers to the directions of the WP(C) No.23276/2010 -2- Commissioner on the basis of which the petitioner is placed under suspension, I do not think that any useful purpose will be served by directing consideration of Ext.P4. However, Ext.P5, which is pending before the 1st respondent, can be treated as a revision filed by the petitioner under Section 99 of the Act. 4. Therefore, I direct the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 treating the same as a revision filed by the petitioner under Section 99 of the Act. This the 1st respondent shall do as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within eight weeks of production of a copy of this judgment, along with a copy of this writ petition. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 1st respondent for compliance. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg