IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2010 / 16TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19430 of 2010(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- P.C.SANTHA, SECRETARY, KERALA STATE HANDICRAFTS APEX CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED (SURABHI), ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 033. 3. KERALA STATE HANDICRAFTS APEX CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED (SURABHI), MANNANCHERI BUILDING, KANNANTHODATH LANE, VALANJAMBALAM, ERNAKULAM-682 016, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. ADV. SRI. M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC HANDEX FOR R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 19430 OF 2010 (C) ===================== Dated this the 7th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T Ext.P1 is the order of the 1st respondent appointing the petitioner as Secretary of the 3rd respondent Society on deputation basis. According to the petitioner, on expiry of the period of deputation, 3rd respondent passed Ext.P2 resolution requesting for extension of the period of deputation. It is stated that, in the meanwhile, on a complaint made by one of the trade unions, inspection was conducted by the Vigilance Officer of the Industries Department, during the course of which, Ext.P3 statement of the petitioner was also recorded. Subsequently, Ext.P4 order was issued by the 1st respondent placing the petitioner under suspension. It is challenging Ext.P4, this writ petition is filed. According to the petitioner, there was absolutely no material to have passed order placing the petitioner under suspension nor is there any justification for doing so. 2. In view of the above averments in the writ petition, this Court by order dated 23/6/10 directed the learned Government Pleader to produce the complaint of the trade union on the basis WPC No. 19430/10 :2 : of which the inspection was conducted and the inspection report also referred to in Ext.P4. In compliance with the said direction, along with his memo dated 29th of June, 2010, Government Pleader has produced both the documents. 3. Although the allegation in the complaint can be said to be vague, still the inspection report shows that it contains irregularities on the part of the petitioner, which if proved, are certainly misconducts. In such circumstances, if the disciplinary authority has thought it fit to keep the delinquent away from the place by placing the petitioner on suspension, this Court will not be justified in sitting in appeal over the administrative decision. 4. Be that as it may, having regard to the fact that Ext.P4 is only an order placing the petitioner under suspension, it is open to the petitioner to seek its revocation by making an appropriate application before the 1st respondent. Therefore, it is directed that it will be open to the petitioner to pursue that remedy, in which case, untramelled by what is stated in this judgment, the 1st WPC No. 19430/10 :3 : respondent will consider the representation and pass orders. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp