IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2010 / 19TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 14897 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- RADHAKRISHNAN.T.R,( VILLAGE MAN, PULLUT VILLAGE OFFICE, KODUNGALLUR, UNDER SUSPENSION) S/O. LATE RAMANKUTTY, THALAPPILLI VEEDU, EDAVANAKKAD POST, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.KUNJHIKANNAN SRI.C.P.KUNJHIKANNAN SRI.S.K.MADHU RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THIRRSUR -3. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 14897 OF 2010 (J) ===================== Dated this the 9th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a Villageman. Following his involvement in a criminal case, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P1 order placing the petitioner under suspension. In this writ petition, he challenges Ext.P1 order, and also complains of non payment of subsistence allowance. 2. As far as the payment of subsistence allowance is concerned, learned Government Pleader on instruction submits that subsistence allowance till 30/4/2010 has already been paid. Needless to say that so long as the petitioner continues under suspension, the subsistence allowance admissible under Rules will continue to be paid. 3. In so far as the order of suspension is concerned, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, on investigation, the police have given a report to the 2nd respondent exonerating the petitioner. It is stated that in the light of such report, Ext.P1 order needs to be withdrawn. If as stated by the petitioner, there is such a police report, it is for the 2nd respondent WPC No. 14897/10 :2 : to consider such report, and take necessary action on the same. 4. Therefore, I leave it open to the petitioner to move the 2nd respondent himself seeking for appropriate orders in the matter, if a report has been filed by the police officers confirming his innocence. With that liberty, the writ petition is disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp