RAJAN. N.C. Vs. THE DIRECTOR OF TREASURIES,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri. C.R. Regunathan, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. M.P. Mohammed Fazil, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner, who is presently working as Junior Superintendent in Sub Treasury, Pudukkad has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P5 order dated 21.3.2009 passed by the Joint Director of Treasuries under Rule 10(1)(a) of Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1960, placing him under suspension, pending enquiry and disciplinary action. The petitioner had earlier filed W.P(C) No. 10820 of 2009 challenging the order of suspension. But a copy of the order of suspension was not produced therein. After a copy of order of suspension was received, this writ petition was filed. I have by order passed today dismissed W.P(C) No. 10820 of 2009 reserving the liberty with the petitioner to prosecute this writ petition. Rule 22 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1960 herein after referred to as the 'Rules' for short, stipulates that a Government servant may appeal against an order of suspension to the authority to which, the authority which made or is deemed to have made the order, is immediately subordinate. Rule 25 provides that no such appeal shall be entertained unless it is submitted within a period of two months from the date on which the appellant received a copy of the order appealed against. The proviso to Rule 25 however empowers the appellate authority to entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period, if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not submitting the appeal in time. Rule 31 empowers that the appellate authority to consider whether in the light of the provisions of Rule 10 and having regard to the circumstances of the case, the order of suspension is justified or not and confirm or revoke the order accordingly. Thus, under the Rules, the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy. I am therefore of the considered opinion that before seeking the intervention of this Court, the petitioner ought to have moved the appellate authority.