IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 5TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 14TH BHADRA 1930 RP.No. 943 of 2008(M) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.29105/2005 Dated 06/06/2008 .................... PETITIONER: ---------------------------- P.MOHANAN, PANAKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PARIYAPURAM P.O., THANUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.CHATHUKUTTY NAMBIAR RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT: ------------------------ 1. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, (CRPF), LOTHI ROAD, NEW DELHI. 2. THE ADDITIONAL DIGPU, CRPF, MOKAMEGHAT, PATNA, BIHAR. 3. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE ADIGP, MOKAMEGHAT, PATNA, BIHAR. 4. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, UNION OF INDIA. BY ASST. S.G. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... R.P. No.943 of 2008 in W.P.(C) No.29105 of 2005 .................................................................... Dated this the 5th day of September, 2008. ORDER The review petitioner, an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police in CRPF stands suspended for unauthorised absence. When the W.P. was heard, respondents submitted in court that petitioner was taken back in service. The Review Petition is filed stating that this was a wrong representation made by respondents. This is another example of how indifferently cases are handled for the Government. In view of the petitioner's statement in the review petition that petitioner is not taken back in service after his suspension, the review petition is disposed of deleting this observation from the judgment. 2. The petitioner's case is that he was harassed while in service and now he has to go to Bihar to face enquiry there. He is also not being paid subsistence allowance during period of suspension is another grievance of the petitioner. The allegation against the petitioner is unauthorised absence and therefore, I feel enquiry can be conducted with reference to records and there may not be any need for oral evidence from witnesses. Since CRPF has a good formation at various centres in Kerala, there will be sufficiently 2 senior officers in Kerala to hold enquiry against the petitioner. In the circumstances, I dispose of the R.P. by directing the first respondent to appoint an Enquiry Officer in Kerala to conduct enquiry in petitioner's case and order transfer of files for completing the enquiry in Kerala. The first respondent is directed to ensure that enquiry is completed and final order issued after giving opportunity to the petitioner, within a period of four months from the date of production of copy of this order by the petitioner before him. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms