IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2008 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 33512 of 2007(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ C.B.PREETHI, U.D.CLERK, COLLECTORATE, PERINTALMANNA, (UNDER ORDER OF SUSPENSION) RESIDING AT NANDANAM, THIRUVEGAPPURA, PATTAMBI. BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF VIGILANCE INVESTIGATIONS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SHRI BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ----------- W.P.(C)No.33512 OF 2007-M ----------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2008 J U D G M E N T Though elaborate contentions have been taken in this writ petition, ultimately the petitioner seems to be aggrieved only by the fact that a vigilance enquiry is contemplated against the petitioner, in relation to what the learned counsel for the petitioner describes as a triviality and which according to him would not fall within the types of cases that could be investigated by the Vigilance Department. Shri Bechu Kurian Thomas refers to paragraph 18 of the writ petition which is referred to here for the purpose of understanding his contentions. 18. The above G.O. dated 12.5.1992 also details what are the types of cases that will be dealt with by the Vigilance Department. Clause 6 of the G.O. reads: 6. Types of cases: The Vigilance Department shall take up investigation/ enquiry of cases falling under the following W.P.(C)No. 33512/07 2 categories: i. Offences of criminal misconduct by the public servants as defined ii. in the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 iii. Any dishonest or intentionally improper conduct on the part of a public servant or abuse of powers as a public servants. iv. Gross negligence or dereliction of duty v. Misuse of any public money or property vi. Misappropriation involving Government or public servant in which the amount exceeds Rs.25,000/-. All other cases of defalcation of public moneys and properties, including funds of Co-operative Societies, irrespective of the amount involved will be dealt with by the regular police vii. Abatement of the above offences. The petitioner submits that she is not reluctant to face a Departmental or Vigilance enquiry. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even a small mistake committed by the petitioner had been corrected and in such circumstances, let W.P.(C)No. 33512/07 3 alone a Vigilance enquiry, no further enquiry is contemplated or justified. In my view, if the petitioner is faced with vigilance enquiry embarked upon in a matter which does not come within the purview of the Vigilance Department, it is always upto the petitioner to first bring it to the notice of the Department that the subject matter of enquiry is not one which falls within the purview of the Vigilance Department or Vigilance enquiry as the case may be. Enquiry has not commenced so far and no order has been issued, either laying down the points of enquiry or specifically directing that an enquiry be conducted as such. It is not a matter for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, at this stage. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of reserving the right of the petitioner to raise objections as regards the Vigilance enquiry as and when it is initiated against her in the manner indicated above. V.GIRI, JUDGE. dsn