IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2010 / 12TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 12577 of 2010(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MARIA AGNUS LUKE, SUB REGISTRAR (UNDER SUSPENSION) NOW RESIDING AT THUNDIPARAMBIL, PATTATH ROAD, CHALIKKAVATTOM, VENNALA.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES (E) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2010, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 16391 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................... W.P.(C).12577 & 16391/2010 ....................... Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. Petitioner in W.P.(C).12577/2010 was the Sub Registrar, Chennamangalam, Ernakulam District during the period from 16.6.2006 to 21.5.2008. By Ext.P1 Government Order dated 22.2.2010 issued by the 1st respondent stating that during the period from 22.8.2007 to 30.1.2008, 25 sale deeds in respect of land having a total extent of 91.10.620 Acres were registered allegedly in violation of the provisions contained in Section 120 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act ('the Act' for short), and that a vigilance case was registered against her, she has been placed under suspension. 3. Insofar as the petitioner in W.P.(C).16391/2010 is concerned, he was the Village Officer, Puthenvelikkara Village during the period from 4.10.2007 to 6.2.2009. By Ext.P1 order W.P.(C)s.12577 & 16391/10 2 in this writ petition issued by the 3rd respondent, the Land Revenue Commissioner, he too has been placed under suspension on the same set of allegations. 4. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C).12577/2010 is concerned, although Section 120 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act require that after the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969, no document relating to transfer of any land shall be received for registration unless the transferor and the transferee make separate declarations in writing (in duplicate) as to the total extent of land held by them, this requirement was not insisted by Registration Department anywhere in the State. In support of this contention, he made reference to Exts.P2. It is stated that it is only after the issuance of Exts.P3 and P4 Circulars, that this requirement was insisted. It is also stated that even if the allegations are taken at its face value, there is only a technical lapse and that there is no justification for placing the petitioner under suspension. It is also contended that having regard to the fact that the petitioner was W.P.(C)s.12577 & 16391/10 3 transferred and relieved from Chennamangalam as early as in 2008 itself, there is no warrant for placing her under suspension at this distance of time. 5. Insofar as the petitioner in W.P.(C).16391/2010 is concerned, though it is not stated so in the order of suspension, the allegation is that after the registration, the land in respect of which the documents were presented, were mutated by him. Learned counsel contended that the petitioner, being a Village Officer, was bound to effect such mutation of the land when applications were made for that purpose. According to him, under Section 120 of the Act, the liability if at all is that of the Registering Authority and even if there is a lapse on the part of the Registering Authority, such lapse could not have been a reason for placing him under suspension. 6. In the statement filed on behalf of the 1st respondent apart from the violation of Section 120 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act alleged against the petitioners, it is also stated that it was on the recommendation of the Vigilance Department that the W.P.(C)s.12577 & 16391/10 4 petitioners were suspended from service. 7. Evidently the petitioners in these writ petitions are not presently working either in Chennamangalam or in Puthenvelikkara, the places in relation to which misconducts are alleged to have been committed. Therefore, their continuance elsewhere, cannot affect investigation of the case against them nor is their any allegation to that effect in the impugned orders or in the statement filed. Further the impugned orders show that a vigilance case was registered and a recommendation was made by the Vigilance Department to place the petitioners under suspension. Acting upon these recommendations, without any application of mind, particularly about the necessity of public interest to place the petitioners under suspension and whether their continuance in service is prejudicial to the investigation etc., the impugned orders have been passed. The orders show that they were passed without any application of mind. Power of suspension, as has been repeatedly held, is to be exercised with due application of mind and adverting to relevant considerations and for aiding the W.P.(C)s.12577 & 16391/10 5 smooth conduct of the ongoing investigation. I am satisfied that in these cases, power of suspension has been exercised without any application of mind. In the circumstances, I see no reason to uphold the orders placing the petitioners under suspension. Therefore, without prejudice to the right of the respondents to continue the proceedings, if any, against the petitioners and without expressing anything on the merits of the contentions, these writ petitions are disposed of quashing Ext.P1 orders. Respondents are directed to permit the petitioners to resume duty in their respective offices. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs