INDIRA DEVI Vs. THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER herein is the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chalakudy, who is under orders of posting as Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manjeri. She is challenging Ext. P3 order of suspension issued by the 2nd respondent. In Ext. P3 it is indicated that an enquiry proceedings under the Kerala Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1960 is contemplated against the petitioner for grave allegations of misconduct and she was suspended from service pending further action, in public interest. By virtue of Ext. P1 proceedings dated 19.2.2014 issued by the State Government the petitioner was appointed as District Judge in the State Higher Judicial Service. Consequently by virtue of Ext. P1(a) proceedings issued by the High Court on 7.3.2014 the petitioner was ordered to be posted as Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Tirur.

(2.) WHILE the petitioner was holding charge as Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur Ext. P1(b) Official Memorandum was issued by the High Court directing her to take steps for conducting a thorough police investigation with respect to forgery committed at the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Chalakudy in issuing receipt in S.T. No. 1510/2013 and with respect to missing of records of S.T. Cases, 1510/2013 1511/2013. According to the petitioner, Ext. P2 complaint was lodged before the Additional Director General of Police, North Zone, Kozhikode, in compliance with Ext. P1 (b) directions and a criminal case was registered based on Ext. P2 complaint, as Crime No. 357/2013 of Chalakudy Police Station. The staff concerned of the Magistrate Court, Chalakudy was placed under suspension by the petitioner.

(3.) CHALLENGE against Ext. P3 order of suspension is based on legal and factual grounds. It is contended that the order of suspension was issued contrary to R. 10(1)(a) of K.C.S. (C.C. & A) Rules. Therefore the impugned order is attacked as violative of Article 14, 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India. Besides, allegation is that it is mala fide and issued in an abuse of the power vested on the respondents. Further it is contended that the petitioner on the date of suspension is a District and Sessions Judge in the State Higher Judicial Service, appointed by the Governor of Kerala under R.5 of the Kerala State Higher Judicial Service Special Rules, 1961. Hence she can be suspended only by the appointing authority or by any authority to which it is subordinate or by any other authority empowered by the Government in that behalf, as per R. 10 of the KCS (CC & A) Rules, Since the High Court is not an authority contemplated under R. 10 it is not empowered to place a District Judge under suspension. Therefore the order impugned is void and inoperative and unenforceable, is the contention.