IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2011 / 20TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 21963 of 2011(U) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- K.RAJAN,S/O. K. NARAYANAN, SCPO-4678,VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION,TRIVANDRUM,PIN-695001. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANACE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, TRIVANDRUM,PIN-695 001. 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, KANNUR UNIT,PIN-670 001. 4. ASHIKAN M.V,SCPO-4211, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, KANNUR UNIT,PIN-670 001. R1 TO R3 BY BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 21963/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE ORDER AS DO. NO.258/2009-C DATED 11/05/2009 OF THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANNUR. P2: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 29/07/2011 AS SO. NO.249/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.21963 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated 11th August, 2011 JUDGMENT The grievances raised in this writ petition is akin to the grievances of the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.17120 of 2011 and connected matters. W.P.(C)No.17120 of 2011 and connected matters were disposed of with directions by me on 11.8.2011. In the said circumstances, I do not think it necessary to deal with the contentions raised in this writ petition, elaborately. Essentially, the question posed for consideration in this case is whether repatriation to parent units while retaining personnel having longer stay in Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau units is sustainable. In W.P.(C)No.17120 of 2011 and connected matters, taking note of the erratum letter dated 8.7.2011, the first respondent herein was directed to reconsider the transfers effected pursuant to the impugned orders therein. Originally, the stand of the respondents was that in case of shortage the `senior most personnel' would be repatriated from Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau to their parent units. Subsequently, as per erratum letter dated 8.7.2011 the words employed thereunder viz. `senior most personnel' was substituted by the words `longest serving personnel”. Taking note of the said circumstances the said writ WP(C).No.21963/2011 2 petitions were disposed of with direction to the first respondent therein viz., the State Police Chief to reconsider the case. In this case, the contention of the petitioner is that the 4th respondent is senior to him. In other words, he is having longer stay in Vigilance & Anti Corruption Bureau and, therefore, he has to be repatriated first. The contention is that repatriating the petitioner while retaining the 4th respondent is unsustainable. Since I have already disposed of the aforesaid connected matters looking into the position available as per the erratum letter dated 8.7.2011 I am inclined to dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:- In case the petitioner was not already repatriated pursuant to Ext.P2 order the petitioner shall not be repatriated pursuant to the same, for a period of two weeks. In the meanwhile, the petitioner may file his objections, if any, against Ext.P2, besides making his claims and contentions within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment before the State Police Chief. In case the petitioner prefers such a representation within the time stipulated as above, the same shall be considered by the first respondent while taking up the claims of the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.17120 of 2011 and connected matters for consideration and appropriate orders shall be WP(C).No.21963/2011 3 passed thereon. In the event of filing of such a representation, within the above stipulated time, the petitioner shall be permitted to continue in V & ACB till a decision is taken thereon and continuance thereafter, will be subject to the decision to be taken on the representation. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS