IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2009 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 4872 of 2009(E) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- P. SUKUMARAN, S/O. PULIKKODAN KELU, KEELETH HOUSE, BENGALAM P.O., MADIKKAI, KASARGOD DIST. BY ADV. MR.ANIL THOMAS(T) SMT.K.V.RESHMI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (ADMN), POLICE HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CB CID, SIG III, KOZHIKODE. 5. RADHAKRISHNAN DY.SP. DISTRICT CIRIME REOCRDS BUREAU,KANNUR. 6. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, WAYANAD. R1 TO R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 4872 of 2009 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is presently working as Circle Inspector of Police at CBCID Wayanad District. The issue involved in the writ petition relate to an enquiry ordered against him. It is pointed out that the allegation against the petitioner herein is that he had committed grave dereliction of duty and negligence in investigating the crime No.442/2006 registered by the petitioner under section 302 of the IPC on the files of the Thalasserry Polic Station. The petitioner was suspended from service as per Ext.P1 order dated 11.12.2007. During the pendency of the enquiry he was reinstated in service as per Ext.P2 order. 2. The petitioner filed Ext.P5 representation before the Director General of Police seeking to withdraw all the departmental enquiries pending in connection with Ext.P1 order of suspension. He contends that except registering the crime, he was not involved in the further investigation as he was assigned other duties. It is therefore, pointed out that there are no grounds at all to allege any misconduct on his part. After wpc: 4872 os2009 2 submitting Ext.P5 representation, since there was no action, he approached this Court by filing WPC No.22642 of 2008. This Court was pleased to dispose of the same with a direction to the second respondent to dispose of Ext.P5 representation within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The same has been produced as Ext.P6 herein. 3. Alleging that no further action is being taken in the matter, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the main prayer to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to withdraw departmental enquiry ordered against the petitioner pursuant to registration of crime No.442 of the Thalasserry Police Station. He is also challenging Ext.P8 order by which an Enquiry Officer has been appointed. 4. As directed by this Court, the fourth respondent has filed a statement. The true copy of the order dated 16.1.2009 passed by the Director General of Police disposing of the Ext.P5 representation has been produced as Ext.R4(a). The Director General of Police was of the view that only after completing the oral enquiry it can be ascertained whether the petitioner is guilty or not. More over in the oral enquiry, he will get all chances to dispute all the allegations levelled against him, if the allegations wpc: 4872 os2009 3 are baseless according to him. Accordingly, he has taken the view at this stage and action need not be dropped. 5. I am not satisfied that any interference is called for at this stage. This Court will not be justified in entering any finding on vital factual disputes at the pre-enquiry stage. Ext.R4(a) shows that his objections have been considered, before rejecting the representation. It is pointed out in the statement that the fourth respondent is conducting the oral enquiry against the petitioner at present. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prayed that a direction may be issued to complete the enquiry within a specified time. It is pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that expeditious steps are being taken in the matter. The enquiry as such against the petitioner shall be completed expeditiously at any rate within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE bps