IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2011 / 10TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 33661 of 2008(G) ---------------------- PETITIONER : --------------- D.JAYAKUMAR, S/O.K.P.DAMODARAN, AGED 44 YEARS, PRESENTLY WORKING AS TECHNICAL ASSISTANT, FISHERIES STATION, VYPEEN, ERNAKULAM, RESIDING AT ASWATHI BHAVAN, VENGINISSERI, PARALAM P.O., THRISSUR - 680 575. BY ADVS. SRI.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR SRI.ARUN VALENCHERY SRI.SAJIKUMAR.K.K. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO FISHERIES AND PORTS DEPARTMENTS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, VIKAS BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, VIKAS BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM. 4. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES (ZONAL), NEAR HIGH COURT, ERNAKULAM. 5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES (ZONAL), NEAR HIGH COURT, ERNAKULAM. 6. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, VYPIN. 7. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE, S.R.M.ROAD, KOCHI. R1 TO R7 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. SMITHA SUKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 33661 of 2008(G) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28-9-2006. EXT.P2 : COPY OF ORDER NO. A1-1063/2003 DATED 13-10-2006 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO. EST/2007 DATED 4-5-2007 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO. D-1-1358/2008 DATED 22-6-2007 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO.EST/07 DATED 30-6-2007 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE DEMO OFFICIAL LETTER NO. 7/2007 DATED 2-7-2007 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P7 : COPY OF THE LEAVE APPLICATION WITH MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 3-7-2007. EXT.P8 : COPY OF THE LEAVE APPLICATION WITH MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 10-7-2007. EXT.P9 : COPY OF THE DEMO OFFICIAL LETTER NO. 8/07 DATED 10-7-2007 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P10 : COPY OF THE JOINING REPORT WITH MEDICAL FITNESS CERTIFICATE DATED 13-7-2007. EXT.P11 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16-7-2007 BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P12 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17-7-2007 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P13 : COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER NO. J1/11251/07 DATED 7/7/2007. EXT.P14 : COPY OF THE LETTER NO. D1/841/06 DATED 13-8-2007 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. Contd... WP(C).No. 33661 of 2008(G) EXT.P15 : COPY OF THE WRITTEN EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 10-09-07. EXT.P16 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 26-3-20087 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P17 : COPY OF THE WRITTEN EXPLANATION DATED 4-4-2008 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 7TH RESPONDENT EXT.P18 : COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WP(C) NO. 20475/2008 DATED 7-8-08. EXT.P19 : COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION DATED 24-8-2008. EXT.P20 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO. J1/11251/07 DATED 19-9-08 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P21 : COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MARINE ENFORCEMENT AND VIGILANCE DATED 22-4-1993. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 33661 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 31st day of May, 2011 J U D G M E N T On 08.04.2011, I passed the following interim order in this writ petition: “The petitioner has been suspended as early as in 2007. Admittedly, the matter has been referred to the Vigilance Tribunal for enquiry. It is common knowledge that the Vigilance Tribunal takes years to complete the proceedings before it. As such, I wonder what is the purpose of continuing the petitioner under suspension. The suspension has to be not merely to suspend an employee, must be with a purpose. Ordinarily it is to prevent the delinquent from committing similar misconducts, to prevent the delinquent from influencing the witnesses or to prevent the delinquent from interfering with evidence. In the above circumstances, the learned Government Pleader shall get instructions as to why the suspension of the petitioner should be continued.” Even after two months, the learned Government Pleader is unable to get instructions in the matter. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of opinion that, it is not necessary to continue the suspension of the petitioner. Accordingly the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service without prejudice to the vigilance enquiry. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //True copy// shg/ P.A. TO JUDGE