The petitioner, an employee of the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd., filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P1 memo dated 22.04.2013 placing him under suspension pending enquiry. The petitioner challenges Ext.P1 on the ground that before it was issued, no enquiry was conducted, that it is vitiated by mala fides and that it is one without jurisdiction. He also contends that he was placed under suspension without proper application of mind. 2. A statement dated 16.06.2014 has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The circumstances in which the petitioner was placed under suspension have been set out in paragraph 2 to 7 thereof. The allegation against the petitioner is that without realising cheques, chitties were commenced and closed. In paragraph eight, it is stated that by Ext.P1 memo, the petitioner was placed under suspension, that thereafter Ext.P2 memo of charges was served on the petitioner and that since the reply submitted by him was not satisfactory, an officer was appointed W.P.(C) No. 7904/2014 -2-
to enquire into the charges levelled against him. It is also stated that Ext.P3 letter dated 24.10.2013 was sent to the petitioner informing him that an enquiry officer has been appointed, that the enquiry officer issued notice to the petitioner, but he did not appear on five postings and therefore, the enquiry officer declared the petitioner ex parte and concluded the enquiry. The respondents have also stated that the enquiry officer has submitted a report on 29.04.2014 and without referring to the notice issued by the enquiry officer the instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order of suspension.
3. Heard Sri. Aneesh Joseph, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. M. Gopikrishnan Nambiar, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. I have also gone through the pleadings and materials on record. Ext.P1 order of suspension was passed on 22.04.2013. Shortly thereafter Ext.P2 memo of charges was issued and later, an enquiry officer was appointed. The enquiry officer after declaring the petitioner ex parte, concluded the enquiry for the reason that the petitioner did not participate in the enquiry in spite of receipt of notice. The W.P.(C) No. 7904/2014 -3-
respondents have also stated that the enquiry officer has submitted a report on 29.04.2013. The instant writ petition was filed only on 18.03.2014. There is no reference at all in the writ petition to the notices issued by the enquiry officer. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that no relief can be granted in the instant writ petition wherein the only challenge is against Ext.P1 order of suspension.
The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with the observation that the dismissal of the writ petition will not stand in the way of the petitioner from challenging the order imposing punishment, if any, issued by the respondents, in other appropriate proceedings.
sd/- P. N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE.
rv