IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2011 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 21841 of 2011(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- FOULAD F.A,U.D.CLERK, AROOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, AROOR P.O., BY ADV. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY SRI.G.HARIKRISHNAN (TRIPUNITHURA) RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE AROOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP.BY THE SECRETARY, AROOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, AROOR P.O.,-688534. 2. THE PRESIDENT, AROOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, AROOR P.O.,-688534. ADDL. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT, O/O. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT, ALAPPUZHA - 688 001. ADDL. 4. THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT (EP-B) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. (ADDL.R3 & 4 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 03/10/11 IN I.A. NO.15813 OF 2011). R3 & R4 BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER, SRI.M.ABDUL KHADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 21841 of 2011(E) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 03.01.2011. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY DR.LATHA T.R. DATED 02.02.2011. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27.01.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT, ALAPPUZHA. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21.06.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT, ALAPPUZHA. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 06.08.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON,J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 21841 OF 2011 and I.A. No.16167 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is mainly aggrieved of Ext.P1 order passed on 03.12.2011 for the alleged involvement in a case registered by the Vigilance Department. The case of the petitioner is that one Sanilkumar, who was working as a Lower Division Clerk, got involved in a trap case proceeded by the Vigilance Department, made a wrong statement to the investigating team that he had collected the bribe on behalf of the petitioner as well; which according to the petitioner, is only a bald averment absolutely without any merit or bonafides and there is no material to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. 2. After filing the writ petition, taking note of the subsequent events, the petitioner got the writ petition amended also impleading the additional 3rd and 4th respondents. According to the petitioner, the Vigilance Department has already forwarded NOC for reinstatement of the petitioner in service and the matter requires to be considered by the 4th respondent in light of the said WP(C) No. 21841 of 2011 -:2:- recommendation. It is in the said circumstance, the petitioner has filed I.A. No.16167 of 2011 on 10.10.2011. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will be satisfied, if a direction is given to the 4th respondent to have considered the matter in the light of the recommendation given by the Vigilance Department and to pass appropriate orders within a reasonable time. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. In the said circumstance, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 4th respondent to pass appropriate orders with regard to the question of reinstatement of the petitioner in service in the light of the recommendation given by the Vigilance Department. Appropriate orders in this regard shall be passed in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE ttb