Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to legal standards of clarity and expeditiousness as mandated by constitutional provisions.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 2^nd day of February, 2026 The petitioner states that he entered service of the 1^st respondent as Assistant Sales Manager on 03.04.2023 on compassionate grounds and was posted at Mylapra Depot, Pathanamthitta.

2. While working as such, he was asked to take charge of the other two godowns attached to the District Depot also, without conducting stock verification. Later, the petitioner handed over the charge of the other two godowns on 18.12.2023 after conducting stock verification.

3. After a period of eight months since the petitioner handed over the charge, stock verification was conducted on 24.10.2024 in the other two godowns. It was reported that discrepancies were found out in the main godown, wherein the petitioner was no connection at all.

4. Based on the inspection report so submitted, action was sought to be initiated against three employees. Two of them including the petitioner were placed under suspension while the other one was left out. Challenging Ext.P4 order of suspension and Ext.P5 memo of charges, W.P.(C) No.10165 /2025 was filed by the petitioner which was disposed of as per Ext.P8.

5. Since the directions contained in Ext.P8 were not complied with, Contempt of Court Case No.1926/2025 was filed, which is pending consideration before this Court. During the pendency of the contempt petition, Ext.P10 fresh memo of charges was issued, superseding Ext.P5. Now another fresh memo of charges was issued to the petitioner as per Ext.P11, superseding Exts.P5 and P10. Ext.P11 is unsustainable in the eye of law for the following reasons:-

(i) It is for the 3^rd time that memo of charges is being issued on an alleged incident.

(ii) Proceedings against the petitioner were initiated by the 5^th respondent by issuing Ext.P4.

Later, Ext.P5 was issued by the 4^th respondent. (iii) Having come to a definite finding that charges are wrong and unsustainable, the 2^nd respondent should not have permitted the respondents to continue with the proceedings.

(iv) It is trite law that framing vague charges would amount to violation of mandates contained in Article 311 of the Constitution of India .

(v) It is also trite that suspension is not automatic.

(vi) Before passing an order of suspension, the authorities should have applied their mind. In the case on hand, Ext.P11 was issued in total violation of the said settled principle of law.

(vii) Copies of the statements given by the petitioner as well as copies of the documents relied on by the department were not given, despite making specific request.

(viii) The petitioner was placed under suspension based on an inspection conducted on 24-10-2024, after a period of eight months, since the petitioner handed over the charge of the other two godowns. No discrepancies were found out in the godown wherein the petitioner is working. Hence, the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner were vitiated with malafides.

6. The respondents filed a statement. The respondents controverted all the allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition. It is submitted that though there is a direction of this Court in Ext.P8 judgment in W.P.(C) No.10165/2025, it was later found that the Charge Memo has to be amended and therefore a fresh Charge Memo was issued as per Ext.P12 on 05.01.2026. The allegation against the petitioner is serious in nature. Therefore, disciplinary enquiry will have to be proceeded with. In the meanwhile, if the petitioner is reinstated in service, the petitioner is likely to influence the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings. The writ petition is without any merit and it is only to be dismissed, contends the Standing Counsel.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for th