IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 20TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 37896 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DR.P.P.KANARAN, AGED 49 YEARS, SON OF RARUKUTTY, ASSISTANT PROJECT OFFICER, REGIONAL A.I. CENTRE, KANNUR.(UNDER SUSPENSION) BY ADV. SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM SMT.KOCHUMOL KODUVATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, TRIVANDRUM-695 001. 2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, TRIVANDRUM-695 001. 3. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, VIKAS BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM-695 001. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.SANDESH RAJA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 37896 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 9th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an Assistant Director in the Animal Husbandry Department. He was placed under suspension for disparaging remarks made by him against the Agriculture Minister in a blog in the internet. The petitioner is challenging the same. According to the petitioner, the alleged blog did not contain any disparaging remarks against the Minister and the same is totally innocent. He has produced a copy of a blog stated to be the basis for the suspension. Going by the same, I did not find anything disparaging in the same. But, according to the respondents, that is not the blog, which is the subject matter of the suspension. They have produced a copy of another blog, which, according to me, is not totally innocent as claimed by the petitioner. In any way, I am not inclined to go into all these questions of fact, which the parties have to contest in the enquiry in the disciplinary proceedings. So I am refraining from making any observation regarding the facts leading to the suspension of the petitioner. However, at this moment of time, I am not inclined to interfere with the suspension. However, I direct the respondents to complete the disciplinary proceedings pursuant to the suspension of the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the 2 date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Needless to say, the petitioner shall co-operate with the enquiry and be present for the enquiry on all the postings. Charge memo shall be issued within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge