K VIKRAMAN NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When can the Writ Court, exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India interfere with an administrative order of suspension of an employee pending departmental enquiry is the important question arising for consideration in this appeal.

(2.) The appellant before us is a Preventive Officer of the Excise Department. According to him, he has a record of meritorious service in that Department and has good service entry and award to his credit but, ultimately he was rewarded with an order of punishment transfer, followed by an order of suspension pending disciplinary proceedings and departmental enquiry. While he was working as Preventive Officer in Karunagappally Excise Circle he was ordered to be transferred to Chathannur Excise Circle which he questioned in this Court in W.P(C) No. 12698 of 2008. A learned Single Judge of this Court vide Exhibit P10, judgment dated 11.4.2008 directed the 4th respondent to consider the representation against his transfer, to be preferred by him. While so, came the order of suspension (Exhibit P12, dated 29.4.2008). The appellant again approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 20619 of 2008 challenging the order of suspension as mala fide and on account of the pressure exerted by what he called the Abkari lobby working against him. The learned Single Judge vide the impugned judgment, refused to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, but observed that it will be open to the appellant to place all available materials before the Government (the first respondent) to show that there was no reason why he should be kept under suspension and that if the appellant files an application under Rule 10(6) of the K.C.S. (C.C. & A) Rules, 1960 within three weeks from the date of the judgment before the Government, it shall treat the matter either as an application for revocation or as an appeal against the order of suspension issued by the second respondent. Aggrieved by, and dissatisfied with the order of the learned Single Judge, the appellant has come up in appeal.

(3.) We heard learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader who took notice for the respondents.