IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 3RD OCTOBER 2008 / 11TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 27245 of 2008(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BABU JOHN, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, RAMAPURAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. RESIDING AT ELLICKANIRAPPEL HOUSE, PALAKUZHA (P.O), (VIA), KOOTHATTUKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI (SR.) SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, DIRECTORATE OF AGRICULTURE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KOTTAYAM. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, IDUKKI. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 27245 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd October, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner who is presently working as Agricultural Officer challenges Ext.P8 order of suspension passed by the Director of Agriculture on 26.8.2008. By Ext.P8, Director of Agriculture placed the petitioner under suspension invoking Rule 10(1)(b) of Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1960, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short, for the reason that two criminal cases have been registered against him. 2. The petitioner contends that he has been falsely implicated in the said two crimes by the husband of the plaintiff in O.S.No.29 of 1998, on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Thodupuzha, and that the criminal cases were filed in relation to a cheque which is referred to in the plaint in the said suit. The petitioner submits that going by the averments in O.S.No.29 of 1998, the cheque in question was issued by the W.P.(C) No.27245 of 2008 2 plaintiff therein to the first defendant in the suit and that the complaints filed by the husband of the plaintiff in the said suit which led to the registration of Exts.P3 and P4 FIRs, were filed with a view to bring pressure on the petitioner to pursuade his father to settle the disputes involved in the civil suit. Rule 10(1) (b) of the Rules states that a Government Servant can be placed under suspension, where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial. The Director of Agriculture, relying on the said provision, has placed the petitioner under suspension, on receipt of information from the Superintendent of Police, Idukki District, that two criminal cases have been registered against him, that the investigation is complete in respect of one and is in progress in respect of the other. A reading of Ext.P8 indicates that it was based on the said information that the order of suspension was passed on 26.8.2008. 3. Smt.Sumathy Dandapani, the learned senior W.P.(C) No.27245 of 2008 3 counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that Director of Agriculture has passed the order mechanically and without application of mind, and if the entire facts had been gone into and the petitioner heard, he would not have resorted to the drastic step of placing the petitioner under suspension. At the stage of placing an employee under suspension, the disciplinary authority cannot be expected to make a roving enquiry to decide whether there is any merit in the criminal cases registered against the petitioner. The mere registration of a criminal case against a government servant empowers the competent authority to place him under suspension. At that stage, no question of hearing the employee concerned and coming to a conclusion after examining the various aspects of the crime registered against him does not arise, for the reason that every government servant will have some explanation or the other to offer as to the circumstances under which the criminal cases were registered against him. Therefore, the challenge to Ext.P8 cannot be entertained in these proceedings. W.P.(C) No.27245 of 2008 4 4. Rule 22 of the Rules provides that a government servant may file an appeal against the order of suspension to the authority to which the authority which made the order is subordinate. In the instant case, the order of suspension was passed by the Director of Agriculture and therefore, the appeal therefrom lies to the State Government. As per Rule 25 of the Rules, an appeal from an order of suspension has to be filed within two months from the date on which a copy of the order was served on the government servant concerned. Rule 31 of the Rules stipulates that in the case of an appeal against an order of suspension, the appellate authority shall consider whether in the light of the provisions of Rule 10 and having regard to the circumstances of the case, the order of suspension is justified or not. In my opinion, the contentions which the petitioner has raised in this writ petition, can properly be raised and enquired into in the appeal, which the petitioner is entitled to file before the State Government under Rule 22 of the Rules. W.P.(C) No.27245 of 2008 5 In these circumstances, I decline jurisdiction and dismiss the writ petition, reserving liberty with the petitioner to move the State Government in appeal under Rule 22 of the Rules. If the petitioner files an appeal within the period of two months stipulated in Rule 25 of the Rules, the appellate authority shall consider the same and pass orders thereon, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case, within a period of two months from the date on which such appeal is filed. It is clarified that the petitioner's contentions on the merits are left open. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE nj.