The permissibility of suspension under Rule 10 of the Kerala Civil Services Rules and the public interest in protecting public property and finding the real culprits were the central legal points established in the judgment.

A much talked about incident which was given wide coverage by the media led to the passing of Ext.P9 order by the Government which is under challenge in this Original Petition.

2. The question raised in the Original Petition is regarding the sustainability of Ext.P9 order of suspension. Before answering the question, it is better to survey the circumstances under which the said order was passed, as discernible from the pleadings of the parties as well as the materials placed this Court.

3. The Petitioner was appointed as Divisional Forest Officer, Timber Sales Division, Palakkad in February, 2000 and he took charge as such on 28.2.2000. While so, on 12.9.2002 it was discovered that valuable thondy materials such as ivory, sandlewood, sandlewood oil etc. kept in the strong room of the Forest Range Office, Olavakkod had been stolen after breaking open the door of the strong room using gas Cutter and tampering with the double lock system. In connection with the above theft, the first respondent issued Ext.P9 order to 12 persons including the Petitioner. It is stated in Ext.P9 that the above-mentioned serious case of theft of valuable thondy materials was reported on 13.9.2002 as per the preliminary enquiry report of the Chief Conservator of Forests (Vigilance). The thondy materials were involved in the forest offences registered in the Walayar Forest Range of Palakkad Forest Division and Kollengode Forest Range of Nemmara Forest Division which are pending before the Criminal Courts. The value of the thondy materials is estimated to be more than Rs.30, 00,000/- but less than Rs. One crore. It is further stated in Ext.P9 that in the preliminary report it was found that there was collusion and criminal conspiracy of the insiders with the intruders and that the exact date and time of occurrence of the theft could not be fixed and the materials lost could not be recovered during the preliminary enquiry. It is also stated in Ext.P9 that the enquiry report reveals clear instances of security lapses, dereliction of duty, gross negligence, non-adherence of rules and procedures to transfer of charge and grave misconduct on the part of the forest officers and staff alleged to be involved in the commission of the offence. It is further stated in Ext.P9 that the irregularities alleged against the officers and staff in the preliminary enquiry report are of grave nature warranting deterrent disciplinary action against them and that considering the severity of the loss sustained by the Government and seriousness of the case, the retention of the said officers and subordinate staff in the department would be detrimental to the smooth and speedy investigation of the case and therefore they are placed under suspension with immediate effect pending detailed enquiry and disciplinary action against them. The Petitioner, who is the Divisional Forest Officer, Timber Sales Division, Palakkad in-charge of the Divisional Forest Officer, Palakkad (holding additional charge with effect from 27.9.2001 till the date of Ext.P9) is shown as No.1 in the list of officers against whom Ext.P9 order has been passed.

4. Sri. M.K. Damodaran, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner challenges Ext.P9 order on various grounds. Firstly, the learned senior counsel submitted that there are no suspecting materials to connect the petitioner with the commission of the alleged misconduct of dereliction of duty, security lapses, gross negligence of supervisory lapse. According to the learned senior counsel, the petitioner was holding the charge of Palakkad Division with effect from 29.9.2001 till 19.9.2002, the passing of Ext.P9 order. He further submits that the petitioner was not the custodian of the thondy materials, as he had no control over the strong room of the Forest Range Office, Olavakkod. That apart, as per the provisions of the Kerala Forest Code (Vol.I) (Thereinafter referred to as “the Code”) keeping control of or custody of thondy articles