IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2009 / 27TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 28306 of 2009(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHAJI.P.R, DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERRATIVE SOCIETIES(ADMN) (UNDER SUSPENSION), OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CO-OPERATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR, VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. MS.ANU SIVARAMAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.28306 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 19th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a Deputy Registrar in the Co-operative Department. While working as Special Sales Officer in the District Co-operative Bank, Kottayam, a case was registered by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, and this led to the suspension of the petitioner as per Ext.P1 order dated 16/10/2008. The petitioner moved for revoking the order of suspension and approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.34106/2008. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment dated 27/11/2008 directing consideration of his request. Accordingly, the matter was considered and by Ext.P5 order dated 21/03/2009, the 1st respondent rejected the case of the petitioner stating that the vigilance enquiry was pending and that even six months had not expired since the suspension of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner again represented by Ext.P6 for revoking the suspension mainly pointing out that more than six months has WP(C) No.28306/2009 -2- expired, and therefore, at least now he should be reinstated in service. Orders have not been passed on Ext.P6 and therefore, this writ petition is filed. 3. The case was adjourned for the instruction of the learned Government Pleader, who, on instructions submits that the Vigilance Enquiry is progressing and that a further period of six months will be needed for completing the enquiry. It is stated that as the enquiry is only pending, the request made by the petitioner for reinstatement is premature. 4. As is evident from the submissions made by both sides the Vigilance Enquiry is only progressing. At this stage, this Court will not be justified in interfering with this matter. However, Vigilance Enquiry cannot be kept pending for long, and the employee can be kept under suspension on that basis. This require an expeditious completion of the Vigilance Enquiry and on that basis, the request made by the petitioner for revoking the suspension also should be reconsidered. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:- That the 3rd respondent shall complete the Vigilance Enquiry that is WP(C) No.28306/2009 -3- going on against the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within five months of production of a copy of this judgment. It is directed that once the enquiry has been completed, and the report is received, the 1st respondent shall re-consider the request of the petitioner for revoking the order of suspension made by him as per Ext.P6, and orders thereon shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within eight weeks thereafter. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before respondents 3 & 1 respectively for compliance, along with a copy of this writ petition. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg