IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2009 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 25415 of 2009(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.MOHAMMED KASIM, S/O.LATE MOHAMMED, THONDIYIL HOUSE, P.O.PANDIKKAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN SRI.P.P.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR, VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTIONBUREAU, MALAPPURAM. 4. MELATTOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MELATTOOR, MALAPPURAM. 5. T.K.GOURI (FORMER SECRETARY) MELATTOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MELATTOOR. 6. M.K.HAMSA, CHARAPPANTHODI HOUSE, P.O.PARAMBIL PEEDIKA, VIA VELIMUKKU, MALAPPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ANUSIVARAMAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.25415 OF 2009 (V) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner, an U.D Clerk in the Thirkkalangode Grama Panchayat, challenges Exts.P5, an order dated 17.1.2009 placing the petitioner under suspension. He sought its revocation by filing Ext.P6. Thereafter he approached this court by filing WP(c). No.13642/09. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P7 judgment directing consideration of Ext.P6. Accordingly, the matter was considered and his prayer was rejected. It is in this circumstance, the writ petition is filed seeking to quash Exts.P5 and P8. 2. At the time of admission, by order dated 8.9.2009 this court directed the Government Pleader to obtain instruction and file a statement regarding the status of the vigilance case and also who else are comprehended by the Vigilance case and whether such persons are also placed under suspension. Accordingly, a statement has been filed by the respondents. 3. As is evident from Ext.P5, the allegation on the basis of which the petitioner was suspended is that on account of WPC.No.25415 /09 :2 : irregularity in the conduct of the auction of the stair case room of the Panchayat shopping complex, loss of Rs.2,02,520/- was caused to the Panchayat for the period from 1.4.2002 to 31.3.2003. It is stated that, the aforesaid irregularity lead to the registration of a vigilance case as V.C.06/08 for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and Indian Penal Code and that the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau recommended the suspension of petitioner till the completion of the investigation. 4. It is stated that the Stair Case room of the building in question was auctioned after wide publicity on 21.12.2001 and 15 persons had participated in the auction. Among the participants, one Sri. M.K. Hamza offered the highest bid amount of Rs.3,560/- per month and the auction was fixed in his name. Thereafter, the Secretary Smt. T.K. Gowri issued notice requiring Sri. Hamza to execute an agreement and remit Rs.10,000/- being the earnest money deposit. He made earnest money deposit on 16.1.2002 and also remitted three months advance rent on 23.1.2002. Despite all this, agreement was executed with Sri. Hamza only on 1.4.2002 and that too the stamp paper was WPC.No.25415 /09 :3 : produced a early as on 16.1.2002. As against the bid amount of Rs.3,560/- per month offered by Sri. Hamza, the rent mentioned in the agreement was only Rs.850/-. 5. On investigation it was also found that the signatures of the Secretary found in the auction diary and the agreement were varying, leading to a suspicion about the authenticity of the signature itself. It is stated that the enquiry revealed that the entries in the agreement were made by he petitioner and that there was no panchayat resolution regarding fixation of rent as at the rate as incorporated in the agreement. Therefore, the allegation against the petitioner that by his conduct Panchayat suffered huge loss of money and that the agreement in the name of the Secretary, with the entries made by the petitioner was a forged one. It was in these circumstances, that the Vigilance recommended suspension of the petitioner. It is also stated that though the then Secretary of the Panchayat is also included as suspected officer No.1. action could not be taken against as she had retired from service in the meanwhile. 6. From the facts disclosed in the statement filed by the respondents, it is therefore evident that this is a case where WPC.No.25415 /09 :4 : prima facie material indicates forgery of document and causing of huge financial loss to the Panchayat. In this factual background, this court will not be justified in concluding that the power of suspension has been exercised in an arbitrary manner calling for interference of this court. 7. However, since in Ext.P8 it is stated that the question of the petitioner's reinstatement in service will be reviewed in the next Review Committee, it is directed that the respondents shall place the request of the petitioner for revocation of the suspension before the Review Committee in its next meeting. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before the first respondent for compliance. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/