DINAKARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Suspension is made in public interest. But should there be assessment of public interest while passing an order for revocation of suspension pending enquiry

(2.) The challenge in the Original Petition is against Ext. P1 order passed by the Government placing the petitioner under suspension. It is seen from the impugned order itself that the suspension was in connection with the hooch tragedy at Kalluvathukkal and Kottarakkara in Kollam District. The tragedy took place while the petitioner was working as Deputy Commissioner of Excise, South Zone. Both Kalluvathukkal and Kottarakkara come under the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, South Zone. Though pursuant to Ext. P3 judgment of this Court, the representation for revocation of suspension was considered, the request was turned down as per Ext. P4. Petitioner contends that all the relevant aspects have not been considered either while suspending the petitioner or while passing Ext. P4 order rejecting the request for revocation of the suspension. It is further contended based on Ext. P5 statement filed by the Government before Justice V.P. Mohan Kumar Commission of Inquiry that there is no involvement of the petitioner in the matter.

(3.) It is brought to my notice that during the pendency of the Original Petition, memo of charges has been framed and issued to the petitioner and it is only a matter of time for the Government and that final decision can be taken in the disciplinary proceedings. Any observation at this stage might prejudice the enquiry now conducted in the matter and ultimately the disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, taking an overall assessment of the situation, I dispose of the Original Petition directing the respondents to see that the disciplinary proceedings now pending against the petitioner pursuant to Ext. P1 are concluded within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.