JUDGMENT

Devan Ramachandran, J The appellant – Society challenges the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.20119 of 2023, since it has quashed Ext.P4 alleged order of suspension issued by it against the 1^st respondent, as also Ext.P7 order whereby such alleged suspension has been extended.

2. Sri.Sasith Panicker – the learned counsel for the appellant, argued that the learned Single Judge ought not to have quashed Exts.P4 and P7 because the 1^st respondent has been placed under suspension pending an enquiry; and that it has been now well settled, through various judicial pronouncements, that Courts should not intervene in such administrative actions unless the same is perverse and unconstitutional. He contended that his client was constrained to suspend the 1^st respondent because she was acting against the interests of the Society and in a manner contrary to her obligations, thus