The authority to suspend municipal employees must adhere strictly to statutory procedures outlined in applicable regulations.

1. The Secretary of Kozhikode Municipal Corporation approached this Court challenging the orders of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in interfering with the suspension and issuance of charge memo of two Lower Division Clerks / Bill Collectors. They were suspended by the proceedings of the Secretary, Kozhikode Municipal Corporation dated 27.06.2022. They were also given charge memo on 15.09.2022 by the Additional Secretary, Kozhikode Municipal Corporation. The Tribunal found irregularities in the matter. The Tribunal found that the Secretary of the Corporation has no power to suspend an employee. The Tribunal also found that without following the procedure under R.5 of the Kerala Municipality (Control Over Officers) Rules, 2011 (for short the "Rules"), memo of charge cannot be issued. While ordering so, the Tribunal directed that the period of suspension shall be regularised and treated as duty.

2. At the outset, we note that the employees are under suspension for the last two years. There is no dispute to the fact that they were arrested by the police and remanded in judicial custody from 27.06.2022 to 05.07.2022. In R.10(3) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules , 1960 it is stated that any Government servant who is detained in custody, whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding forty eight hours shall be suspended with effect from the date of detention. This Rule is equally applicable to the employees under the Municipal Corporation. If that be the case, whether suspension order was issued by the Secretary or not, does not have much significance in this matter. Any way, we note that since more than two years have lapsed, we are of the view that these employees shall be reinstated forthwith. However, they can be deployed to any other place other than the office where they were while under suspension. The only question that arises, in such circumstances is in regard to the regularisation of period of service. That question will be answered at a later stage after answering the issue related to the charge memo.

3. Under R.5 of the Rules, a definite procedure has to be delineated for the issuance of charge memo. It is the mandate that before issuance of charge memo, show cause shall be issued. Only on being satisfied that the response to the show cause is not satisfactory, charge memo can be issued.

4. On perusing the charge memo, we find that the procedure has not been followed. The charge memo, therefore, at the best can be treated as show cause eliciting the response from the employees who are under suspension. The Court or Tribunal at the initial stage of proceedings should be circumspect in interfering with the matter and if there is any defects, shall allow the disciplinary authority to cure the defects if such defects are curable and permit them to proceed in accordance with law. It is improper for the Court or Tribunal to interfere with the matter at the threshold unless such proceedings are abuse of process of Court.

5. Having considered the nature of the charge memo, we are of the view that it shall be treated as show cause. The respondents are given four weeks time to file response to the show cause, if they want to raise any additional response. It is stated that they have already made a response. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority shall decide whether there is any requirement to proceed with the issuance of charge memo or not, by an order.

6. In view of the fact that we have ordered reinstatement and also in view of the fact that they are permitted to proceed with disciplinary action in accordance with R.5 of the Rules, we are of the view that the regularisation of the period involved in suspension can be decided