This writ petition challenged an order placing petitioners under suspension pending disciplinary action. The court held no preliminary enquiry is needed as no rule mandates it, refused to find malafides based on produced material, and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
TUESDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2010 / 12TH SRAVANA 1932
WP(C).No. 22698 of 2010(J)
PETITIONER(S):
BY ADV. SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM
SMT.K.P.AMBIKA
SMT.A.M.FASEENA
RESPONDENT(S):
ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS,SC,POLL.C.BOAR FOR R
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO.22698 OF 2010(J)
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P12, an order issued by the first respondent placing the petitioners under suspension pending disciplinary action against them.
WPC.No.22698 /2010
:2 :
since the first respondent had a visitor, he could not enter the chamber of the first respondent and that by the time the visitor left the office it was 12.30.p.m. It is stated that thereupon he met the first respondent and that the respondent declined to accept Ext.P11 explanation, stating that the time allowed for submitting the explanation had already expired. It is stated that immediately thereafter, the first respondent issued Ext.P12 order placing the petitioners under suspension with immediate effect, in terms of Rule 7(1) of the Kerala State Pollution Control Board Service Disciplinary Rules. It is this order which is under challenge in this writ petition.
WPC.No.22698 /2010
:3 :
contended that Ext.P12 order was not preceded by any preliminary enquiry and therefore the petitioners did not get any opportunity to urge their contentions before they were placed under suspension. It is also contended that though the petitioners wanted to file their explanation to Ext.P9 notice, they could not file the reply for reasons not attributable to them. Counsel also invited my attention to Exts.P13 and P14 to contend that even the Board order to place its employees under suspension were not implemented by the fist respondent and that his endeavor was only to protect his favourites.
WPC.No.22698 /2010
:4 :
of the petitioners prima facie spelt out misconducts in terms of the Conduct Rules, Ext.P12 order placing them under suspension was issued , pending further disciplinary action against them. It is stated that such action was warranted in order to maintain discipline and prestige of the office and therefore this court shall not interfere with such order.
:5 :
WPC.No.22698 /2010
petitioners, in paragraph 3 to 7, petitioners have disputed the assertion made by the Chairman in his counter affidavit. The claim made by the Ist petitioner and countered by the Ist respondent is a seriously disputed question of fact and in tis proceedings, this court is not in a position to go into such a disputed question of fact. Even otherwise this will be an issue arising for consideration, if further action is initiated against the petitioners and therefore, it may not be proper to pronounce on this question, at this stage.
WPC.No.22698 /2010
:6 :
establish that the power of suspension has been exercised in an arbitrary manner or for mala fide reasons, certainly this court will be justified in interfering with the order of suspension. In this case, relying on Exts.P2,P3,P4,P6 and P7, it was contended that, Ext.P12 order is vitiated for mala fide reasons. Although it is true that some of these publications are at the instance of the petitioners, there is nothing directly linking these publications with Ext.P12. In such case, on the materials produced, this court is not in a position to conclude that Ext.P12 is vitiated for reasons which are mala fide in nature.
Writ Petition fails and is dismissed.
(ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE
vi/
WPC.No.22698 /2010
:7 :
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a preliminary enquiry is required before placing an employee under suspension pending disciplinary action.
Whether the order of suspension was arbitrary or motivated by malafide reasons.
ThridEEP Kumar M.P
Alexander George
Chairman, Kerala State Pollution Control Board
Kerala State Pollution Control Board
Antony Dominic
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
