1. The petitioner, who is working as Junior Assistant in the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, who is now under suspension, seeks to quash the suspension order as the allegations are baseless, malicious, vindictive and framed on false story intended only to keep away the petitioner from service as a revenge for challenging the order of transfer.

2. The petitioner states that when he was transferred, he filed W.P.(C) No.18043/2025 challenging the transfer.  The writ petition is still pending before this Court. The petitioner was working in Udayakulangara Supermarket on 12.08.2025. As he felt physical uneasiness, he left the office after placing an application for casual leave for the afternoon of 12.08.2025 and forenoon of 13.08.2025. The petitioner arrived at the office in the afternoon of 13.08.2025. When he proceeded to Federal Bank, Neyyattinkara for remittance of sales proceeds, he was informed that the General Manager of the Corporation has arrived at the shop for inspection. After inspection, the General Manager did not note any remarks.

3. Next day, the Junior Manager of Neyyattinkara Depot made an inspection. The Junion Manager made a finding that there is a difference to the tune of 2.5 Kg. in the quantity of dry chilly, three damaged pouches of Kera Coconut Oil, one packet of cumin seed and one packet of pepper powder. The petitioner was made to pay ₹2,382/-. The inspecting officer took away 14 Registers. The Registers were returned after two days.

4. To the surprise of the petitioner, he was served with Ext.P7 suspension order. Ext.P7 has been issued on baseless grounds, contends the petitioner. False and fabricated allegations were made in Ext.P7. The 5th respondent, as per Ext.P9 order, directed the petitioner to handover the charge of OIC to the ASM. Even at the time of handing over of charge, there was no variation in the stock of any item or cash.

5. The petitioner states that Ext.P7 suspension order is illegal. Ext.P6 inspection report, based on which he is suspended, contains unsustainable conclusions. The findings in the enquiry report, on the face of them, are incorrect. In the facts of the case, suspension of the petitioner pending disciplinary proceedings is unwarranted. There are no serious allegations against the petitioner that could lead to major penalty and requiring suspension, contended the petitioner.

6. The petitioner therefore seeks to direct respondents 1 and 2 to place the petitioner in the same station or in any nearby places as the petitioner is the only person to look after his aged mother suffering from various ailments.

7. The respondents opposed the writ petition. The 1st respondent filed a counter affidavit. The 1st respondent stated that the petitioner remained absent unauthorisedly from duty on 12.08.2025 and 13.08.2025. The petitioner was negligent in supervision. By his improper handling of expired and damaged stock, the Corporation has suffered financial loss. The attendance register was seen tampered. Supervisory remarks entered in the attendance register in red ink by higher officers had been erased using whitener. The petitioner has committed serious breach of service discipline.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.

9. The petitioner stands suspended in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. The allegation against the petitioner is that name of daily packing employees are not entered in the muster roll. Personnel cash declaration register, damage register, etc. are not properly maintained. Directions issued to OICs regarding cleanliness are not fully implemented. The direction to verify stock on 20th of every month was not carried out by the petitioner.

10. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the suspension order contending that the charges levelled against him are factually unsustainable. Such factual adjudication exercise cannot be carried out by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The defence, if any, of the petitioner with regard to the charges levelled against him, has to be put forth in the disciplinary enquiry proceedings contemplated. The charges levelled against the petitioner are sufficient to justify the order of suspension.

11. In the facts of the case, I am not inclined to interfere with the suspension order. The writ petition is, however, disposed of directing the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings contemplated against the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.