IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 9TH OCTOBER 2009 / 17TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 15974 of 2009(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- ELDO VARGHESE, S/O.K.T.VARGHESE, AGED 37 YEARS, ASSISTANT MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTOR, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.M.SAJJAD RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No.15974 of 2009 --------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector in the Motor Vehicles Department, on advice by the Public Service Commission, vide order dated 12.11.1999. While so, he was suspended on 21.7.2004 and the suspension was revoked on 27.11.2004. A vigilance enquiry was conducted on the allegation that he amassed wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income. Ext.P3 memo of charges was also issued for initiation of departmental proceedings and a statement of allegations was served on him. The petitioner's probation has not been declared so far and he made a request in this regard. It was rejected under Ext.P8 stating that there is a vigilance case pending against the petitioner. It is asserted that the petitioner's W.P.(C)No.15974 of 2009 :: 2 :: probation can be declared only after finalisation of the vigilance case. Ext.P8 is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent. 3. It is contended that a vigilance enquiry is pending against the petitioner. Though departmental proceedings were initiated, they can be finalised only after completion of the vigilance proceedings. It is contended that the department cannot be compelled to declare the probation of the petitioner. 4. I heard counsel on either side. It is up to the Head of the Department to consider whether the probation of a candidate will have to be extended. It will depend upon satisfactory conduct. It is the case of the petitioner that the probation can be extended only till 19.1.2007, on which date he passed the obligatory departmental test for the post of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector. W.P.(C)No.15974 of 2009 :: 3 :: 5. But, it has to be noted that the pendency of the departmental proceedings cannot be taken note of for not taking a decision on the question of declaration of the probation of the petitioner. Admittedly, there is no vigilance case pending against the petitioner. What is pending is only a vigilance enquiry. Since the departmental proceedings cannot be finalised till the vigilance proceedings are finalised, pendency of the vigilance enquiry, by itself, should not stand in the way of the competent authority considering whether the petitioner's probation is liable to be declared. 9. Accordingly, Ext.P8 is quashed. The 2nd respondent shall pass fresh orders in the matter of declaration of the petitioner's probation, after considering whether his conduct is satisfactory. It is up to the 2nd respondent to consider whether the probation is to be declared, as having been satisfactorily completed or whether the period of probation is liable to W.P.(C)No.15974 of 2009 :: 4 :: be extended. Orders shall be passed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of above. Sd/- (V.GIRI) Judge sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge