IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2010 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1932 OP.No. 13113 of 2001(J) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K. PERUMAL, RETIRED DY.S.P., SHEELA BHAVAN, KOTTIYAM.P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY (VIGILANCE), DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, TRIVANDRUM. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P. NANDAKUMAR. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. NO. 13113/2001-J: ORDER ON C.M.P. NO. 20813/2001 IN O.P. NO. 13113/2001-J DISMISSED 25/05/2010. SD/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER ON 22/07/92. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ENQUIRY OFFICER (ASP, KOLLAM). EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 25/07/1995 NUMBERED AS B1 5026/95 SZ ISSUED BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, SOUTH ZONE. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICES DTD. 02/03/1996 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 10/05/96 NUMBERED AS G2 36332/94 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DTD. 07/12/2000 NUMBERED AS 9246/A1/98. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO EXT.P.6. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 22/03/2001 NUMBERED AS G.O.(MS).NO.15/2001/VIG. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- O.P. No.13113 of 2001 (J) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 25th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T In 1974, the petitioner joined service as Sub Inspector of Police. In 1992, while he was working as Circle Inspector of Police at Kollam, based on complaints made by certain jewellers, Ext.P1 memo of charges were issued against the petitioner and one Police Constable by name Shri.T.Babukumar. An enquiry was conducted and in Ext.P2 report, it was held by the enquiry officer that the charges were not proved. Based on the enquiry report, the Inspector General of Police issued Ext.P3 proceedings exonerating the petitioner. The Director General of Police reviewed the order suo motu and issued Ext.P4 show cause notice to the petitioner. Finally the Director General of Police also exonerated the petitioner by Ext.P5 proceedings. 2. After these proceedings, Ext.P6 memo of charges was issued by the 1st respondent on the very same set of allegations. The petitioner submitted Ext.P7 explanation. Thereafter Ext.P8 O.P. No.13113/2001 -2- order was issued by the 1st respondent referring the case against the petitioner and Shri.Babukumar, the Police Constable, to the Vigilance Tribunal for a detailed enquiry under the Kerala Civil Services (Vigilance Tribunal) Rules, 1960. It was at that stage, this original petition was filed, pointing out, inter alia, that on the date of issue of Ext.P8, the petitioner had only 7 days service left. 3. Irrespective of the merits of the contentions, fact remains that the petitioner retired from service on 31/03/2001 and the misconducts, in relation to which Ext.P8 order was issued, were allegedly committed as early as in 1990s. He was exonerated by the Enquiry Officer, Inspector General of Police and the Director General of Police. That apart, it is also now seen that the co-delinquent Shri.Babukumar appeared before the Vigilance Tribunal and the Vigilance Tribunal concluded the proceedings and submitted its report finding that the evidence adduced in the case was insufficient to bring home the guilty of the accused. That recommendation was accepted by the Government and the Government issued GO(Rt.) No.334/03/vig. Dated 12/12/2003 dropping further proceedings against Shri.Babukumar. O.P. No.13113/2001 -3- Therefore, having regard to the long lapse of time, and also taking into account the finding of the Vigilance Tribunal and the Government Order in so far as it concerns Shri.Babukumar, I do not think that any useful purpose will be served in upholding Ext.P8 or continuance of the proceedings before the Tribunal. For that reason Ext.P8 is quashed. It is directed that any benefits withheld on account of Ext.P8 will be disbursed to the petitioner. This original petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg