Suspension orders cannot have retrospective effect under the Kerala Civil Services Rules, and timely completion of disciplinary proceedings is essential.

1. The petitioner, an Assistant Conservator of Forests, was placed under suspension by an order dated 24-11974, copy Ext. P1. This order referred to a series of charges against the petitioner on which Government was proposing to make a detailed enquiry before the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings. The charges concerned the conduct of the petitioner as Assistant Conservator of Forests, Teak Plantation Division, Parambikulam from 191969 to 23-5-1971. It is said that loss was caused to the Government by removal of timber and such other acts affecting the interests of the Government. It was said in Ext. P1 that there were several Forest Contractors and other forest subordinate staff to give evidence as prosecution witnesses before the Tribunal and that the continuance of the petitioner in service even at a distant place was likely to influence the evidence of the witnesses to be examined before the Tribunal. This order is attacked as incompetent as also mala fide. To understand this attack it is necessary to refer to the previous history of the case.

2. While the petitioner was working as Assistant Conservator of Forests, Teak Plantation Division, Parambikulam, there were reports of large scale smuggling of timber. It was said that this was possible by reason of the collusion of the contractors with the officers of the Department. The petitioner was placed under suspension on the basis of the report and an enquiry was ordered to be conducted by the Ex-Branch Vigilance Division. This was by order dated 19-3-1971. This order was subsequently reviewed by the Government on 3-12-1971. The petitioner's suspension was vacated and the petitioner was reinstated. It was thereafter that as a result of the enquiry conducted by the Ex-Branch Vigilance Division the Government was satisfied of a prima facie case against the petitioner and in those circumstances the Government passed a fresh order dated 17-7-1973 placing the petitioner again under suspension. This order of suspension was attacked before this Court in O.P.No. 2442 of 1973. That attack succeeded as evidenced by Ext. P2 judgment of this Court. It succeeded mainly on the ground that there was no proper consideration of the relevant facts in placing the petitioner under suspension by the order impugned. It was further observed by this Court that if the continuance of the petitioner in the department, wherever he was, will be detrimental to or embarrass the enquiry that may be a circumstance which may occasion review of the earlier order of reinstatement. Evidently what was wanting in the order which was impugned in the earlier petition was made up by passing Ext. P1 stating the reasons for suspending the petitioner.

3. The attack against Ext. P1 order is three-fold. The petitioner attacks this as malafide. It is also attacked on the ground that the order suffers from the same vice as the earlier order challenged before this Court. Lastly it is said that the Government had no power to suspend any person retrospectively and therefore in as much as Ext. P1 placed the petitioner under suspension retrospectively from 17- 71973, the order was bad.

4. The counter affidavit details various matters relating to the charges against the petitioner, refers to several materials as having been collected against the petitioner by the Ex-Branch Vigilance Division at the enquiry and states the necessity for enquiry into such charges against the petitioner. It also seeks to justify the suspension on the ground that in the nature of the evidence to be adduced at the enquiry, particularly the witnesses to be examined, it was necessary to keep the petitioner off his office pending finalisation of the disciplinary proceedings. If the order of suspension is competent it cannot fail on the ground that it is mala fide, for, on the facts stated mala fides cannot be easily inferred. If there was a case for enquiry against the petitioner or if there were materials before the Government to satisfy the