IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2008 / 25TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 30638 of 2008(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER : ---------------- K.VIJAYAMMA, ASSISTANT DISTRICT LOTTERY OFFICER, KOTTAYAM (UNDER SUSPENSION), RESIDING AT pADINJATTETHIL HOUSE, KUNNAMTHANAM P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KRB.KAIMAL (SR.) SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL SRI.UNNIKRISHNAN.V.ALAPATT RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES (H) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE LOTTERIES DEPARATMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ====================================== W.P.(C)No.30638 of 2008 ====================================== Dated this the 17th day of October 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner, while working as Assistant District Lottery Officer in Kottayam District was placed under suspension by Ext.P1 order dated 30.4.2008 issued by the State Government. Along with the petitioner, the District Lottery Officer and a Section Clerk were also placed under suspension. The order of suspension recites that there have been irregularities in the sale of lottery tickets in the Kottayam Office. According to the petitioner, there are two units in the District Lottery Office, Kottayam; one unit dealing with the sale of tickets and the other dealing with prized tickets. The petitioner is in charge of the unit dealing with prized tickets and the unit dealing with the sale tickets is under the charge of the District Lottery Officer. The petitioner submits that when the final account of the sales effected as on 10.4.2008 was prepared, a print out could not be taken in the evening of that day, due to an error in the computer and therefore it was postponed to the next day. On the next day, viz.11.4.2008 the District Lottery Officer was absent. Though the statement in relation to 10.4.2008 had to be furnished to the Director of Lotteries by fax in the evening of 10.4.2008 itself, it W.P.(C)30638/2008 2 could not be done on 10.4.2008 since the print out could not be taken. The draw of the tickets sold up to 10.4.2008 was held on 11.4.2008. Therefore it was imperative that the statement has to be faxed to the Director on 10.4.2008 itself. Therefore, on 11.4.2008, when the Section Clerk approached the petitioner to sign the statement (Ext.P2) on behalf of the District Lottery Officer who was absent on 11.4.2008, without suspecting the bona fides of the request made by the Section Clerk, the petitioner signed the statement and it was faxed to the Director. Later some irregularity was noticed in the sale of tickets and merely based on the fact that the petitioner had signed Ext.P2 statement, she was also placed under suspension. The petitioner submits that though she was placed under suspension as early as on 30.4.2008, no memo of charges has been issued till date and that she is due to retire from service on 31.10.2008 on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner further submits that pointing out these aspects, she has moved the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department seeking revocation of the suspension and that unless orders are passed before 31.10.2008, she will suffer irreparable injury and loss. 2. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by Sri.K.R.B.Kaimal, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the W.P.(C)30638/2008 3 petitioner and Smt.Anu Sivaraman, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. Ext.P3 discloses that it was submitted as early as on 5.5.2008. From the averments made by the petitioner in the writ petition and the statement made in Ext.P3, I am prima facie satisfied that the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P3 requires to be attended to before she retires from service. Though Ext.P1 order of suspension was passed on 30.4.2008, till date a memo of charges has not been issued and served on the petitioner. Rule 10(6) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules 1960 empowers the authority which passed the order of suspension to revoke it. Paragraph-17 of the Manual of Disciplinary Proceedings also contains a similar provision. Therefore, having regard to the fact that the petitioner will retire from service on 31.10.2008, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the Secretary to Government, Taxes Department to consider the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P5 and pass orders thereon on or before 25.10.2008. The petitioner shall with a view to enable the Secretary to Government, Taxes Department to take a decision in the matter, produce a certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the said officer on 21.10.2008. Needless to say, the petitioner will also be afforded an W.P.(C)30638/2008 4 opportunity of being heard before orders are passed as directed above. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE css/