IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2008 / 5TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 280 of 2008(G) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- J.SHERIEF, S/O.P.JAMAL MOHAMMED, AGED 51 YEARS, SUPERINTENDENT, CORPORATION OF KOCHI (SUSPENDED AND UNDER ORDERS OF REINSTATEMENT) RESIDING AT QUARTER NO.6, OBSERVATORY COMPOUND P.O.VIKAS BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM-695 033). BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No. 280 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 25th January, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner while serving as a Superintendent in the Kochi Corporation was suspended from service as per Exhibit P2 order. He moved the authorities against the order of suspension seeking revocation of the same. Suspension was revoked under Exhibit P3 order but subject to the rider of that he may be posted in any of the Municipalities except in Pathanamthitta and Ernakulam Districts. Petitioner sought for variation of Exhibit P3 vide Exhibit P4 which was rejected under Exhibit P5 order, The same is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. Petitioner cannot be aggrieved by Exhibit P3 order as such. The allegations forming the subject matter of enquiry, pending which the petitioner has been placed under suspension is relatable to the petitioner's tenure in the Thiruvalla Municpality. The restriction on posting the petitioner in Pathanamthitta District cannot be faulted with. But it is difficult to understand why the restriction should be extended to the W.P ( C) No. 280 of 2008 2 Municipalities in Ernakulam district also. I do not express any final opinion on this aspect. 3. Learned Government Pleader submits that petitioner cannot insist on a particular place of posting, on revocation of suspension. This is correct. But restriction imposed must be independently justified. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to move for a change in Exhibit P3 in so far as it relates to the restriction on the petitioner being posted in any of the Municipalities in Ernakulam district. If the petitioner moves for variation of Exhibit P3, within one month from today, it shall be looked into by the Government and appropriate decision taken in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner, within three months thereafter. Such decision shall be taken untrammeled by Exhibit P5. I make it clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the contentions of either parties. (V.GIRI, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No. 280 of 2008 2 K.THANKAPPAN,J CRL.A. NO.92 OF 1999 W.P ( C) No. 280 of 2008 2 ORDER 25th May, 2007