T.A.LUKOSE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The period of suspension of the petitioner from 1.11.1997 to 18.6.1999 was regularised as duty by the first respondent by Ext.P7 order however limiting the pay and allowances to subsistence allowance drawn. The remaining period till the petitioner reported for duty was regularised as joining time and/or in terms of the relevant provisions of the Kerala Service Rules ('KSR' for short). Ext.P7 order was unsuccessfully challenged before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal ('Tribunal' for short) and hence the petitioner is before us in this original petition.

(2.) Rule 56B(3) of Part I KSR reads as follows:

(3.) Ext.P1 order of suspension on the other hand revealed that it was justified in the circumstances in view of the alleged nexus of the petitioner with one Sreedevi who was conducting a beauty parlour. The allegation on the basis of the various inputs by the police was that Sreedevi was conducting a brothel under the cover of the beauty parlour and supplying women to the wealthy. Ext.P1 order of suspension was passed on the basis of the report of the Director General of Police and the preliminary enquiry report of the Inspector General of Police (NZ). Ext.P1 order explicitly states that the petitioner has behaved in a manner which is not expected from responsible senior officers which carried bad name to the police force.