LAWS(KER)-2009-3-137

G. RAJESWARI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Decided On March 25, 2009
G. Rajeswari Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KERALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner is the appellant. She is an Additional Secretary to Government. The writ petition was filed by her challenging Ext.P4, memo of charges dated 27.10.2007 and also Ext.P6, order dated 13.1.2009, suspending her from service.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are the following. The Manager of St. Albert's College filed Writ Petition No. 18594 of 2006 seeking affiliation to the M.G. University for one of the new courses started by the College. The appellant is accused of having issued instructions, which were illegal, to defend the case to the learned Advocate General. It was felt by the Government that the instructions were contrary to the Statutes of the M.G. University and policy of the Government concerning starting of new courses. At the stage of preliminary enquiry, though the appellant admitted the issuance of such instructions, later she claimed that she has no role whatsoever in issuing such a direction. It appears the Government have a case that the files were manipulated by her, subsequently, to appear that she did not issue such instructions. Concerning the issuance of instruction to the Advocate General, the Government held a preliminary enquiry and based on the finding in that enquiry, Ext.P4 charge sheet was issued. She submitted Ext.P5 explanation. Later, by Ext.P6, she was suspended from service. The writ petition was filed challenging Exts.P4 and P6, on various grounds, including legal malice.

(3.) THE learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, declined to interfere with Ext.P4. But the learned Judge expressed the view that since the appellant has been transferred from the Secretariat to another establishment and from there to a third establishment, it may not be necessary to keep her under suspension to prevent her from interfering with the enquiry. So, the learned Judge directed the Government to consider whether her continued suspension is necessary. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the learned Single Judge, this appeal is filed.