IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2008 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1930 WA.No. 1018 of 2008() ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.37445/2007 Dated 28/02/2008 .................... APPELLANT: RESPONDENTS ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE SPECIAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (B) DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT, MEDICAL COLLEGES THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER RESPONDENT: PETITIONER ----------------------- DR.SUGANTHI DAVID, W/O.JOY JACOD "SUGANTHI", ENNIKKARA, KARAKULAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.SANDESH RAJA BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR) THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B. Koshy & P.N.Ravindran, JJ. -------------------------------------- W.A. No. 1018 of 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of May, 2008 Judgment Koshy,J. Writ petitioner in this case is an Associate Professor in the Department of Orthopaedics in the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. She was suspended pending enquiry on the contention that there was inaction in transferring a detenu under the Kerala Anti-social Activity (Prevention) Ordinance to the cell intended for detenus inspite of intimation having been given about the order of the District Magistrate for detention of the detenu under the said Ordinance. In support of the above, respondents produced Ext.R3 (a) to show that the matter was informed to her. Contention of the petitioner as stated at paragraph 3 of the judgment was that Ext.R3 (a) was not served on her and what was served was something else and she has signed only second page. But, we have verified with the files. The second page is written on the reverse of the front page and there is continuity. But, last line in the front page was not legible in the photostat copy produced as Ext.R3 (a). It shows the signature of the petitioner. Ext.R3 (a) was received by W.A.No. 1018/2008 2 the appellant. But, by that alone, it cannot be stated there was purposeful inaction on the part of the appellant in not transferring the detenu. The learned Judge in the impugned judgment only directed to withdraw the suspension and continue the disciplinary action. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that she was already transferred from the Medical College Hospital,Thiruvananthapuram. It is not necessary in all cases of disciplinary matters that parties should be suspended. Since the learned single Judge has only allowed to continue the disciplinary action, we are of the opinion that no interference is required in the operative portion of the judgment. The disciplinary proceedings shall be continued according to law without suspension untrammelled by the observations in the judgment of the learned single Judge or in this judgment. The writ appeal is disposed of accordingly . J.B.Koshy Judge P.N.Ravindran Judge vaa W.A.No. 1018/2008 3 J.B. KOSHY AND P.N.RAVINDRAN,JJ. ------------------------------------- W.A. No. 1018 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Judgment Dated:28th May, 2008