IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 23RD OCTOBER 2009 / 1ST KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 5307 of 2009(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.U.MOHAMMED HANEEFA, FOREST RANGE OFFICER, FLYING SQUAD RANGE, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.K.A.BALAN SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SRI.S.A.ANAND SRI.R.VARUN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOREST AND WILD LIFE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN : 695 001. 2. PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, FOREST HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN : 695 014. 3. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, (ADMINISTRATION), FOREST HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN : 695 014. MR.ANTONY MUKKATH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.5307 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 23rd day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was promoted as a Range Officer on 02/07/1998. The period of probation was one year of duty within a continuous period of two years. Although, the petitioner completed the specified period of duty for declaration of probation, he passed the required departmental tests only on 16/01/2002. Therefore, his probation could have been declared only thereafter. 2. At that stage, by order dated 12/07/2002, which was served on the petitioner on 20/07/2002, the petitioner was placed under suspension pending disciplinary action. Ext.P1 memo of charges was issued on 04/07/2003, and Ext.P2 explanation was submitted by the petitioner on 14/08/2003. Thereafter, with effect from 01/01/2004, his suspension was revoked and he was reinstated in service. During this period, his probation was not declared and the proposal made to the Chief Conservator was returned by that Officer on 27/04/2006 directing to submit the WP(C) No.5307/2009 -2- same after finalisation of the disciplinary action. The matter stands at that stage, and the petitioner is attaining the age of superannuation on 31/03/2010. At that stage, this writ petition is filed mainly complaining that his probation has not been declared so far. 3. The respondents would submit that the probation is not declared so far for the reason that the disciplinary action is still remaining incomplete. They also submit that on the basis of the allegations, on which the petitioner was placed under suspension, a case has been registered by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau. It is stated that the allegations, which are the subject matter of the enquiry, are pertaining to the periods 1997-98 to 2000-01, i..e within the probationary period of the petitioner. They have produced Annexure R3(a), a copy of the Government Order dated 12/05/1992, and contended that when the vigilance investigation is pending, the Department cannot proceed parallelly with the departmental enquiry on the same allegations, but has to wait for the completion of the vigilance investigations/enquiry. It is stated that it is in view of this, the disciplinary action remain WP(C) No.5307/2009 -3- incomplete, and as a result of which the probation is also not declared. 4. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 03/06/2009, the learned Government Pleader submits that the Vigilance Department needs a further period of six months to complete the enquiry. 5. Facts as narrated above shows that the suspension of the petitioner was in 2002, charge memo was issue in July, 2003 and that there has not been any progress since then. It is apparently because in 2004 the Vigilance enquiry has commenced. Even going by the statement, the Vigilance enquiry having commenced in 2004, there has not been any appreciable progress. At the same time, it is to be remembered that the petitioner remains without being his probation declared, and as a result of which, he has already been superseded, and he is also to retire on 31/03/2010. At this stage, what is required to be done to redress the grievance of the petitioner is that the Vigilance Enquiry should be expedited and concluded, and thereafter the departmental proceedings also should be completed. WP(C) No.5307/2009 -4- 6. Having regard to the fact that the Vigilance enquiry has commenced in 2004, and that the petitioner is to retire in March 2010, I am inclined to think that the respondents are not justified in seeking a further period of six months for completing the vigilance enquiry. Having regard to the above, I direct that the Vigilance Enquiry involving the petitioner shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months of production of a copy of this judgment. It is directed that on that basis, the departmental proceedings should be concluded, and the issue of declaration of probation should also be dealt with. The petitioner's grievance will be redressed on that basis. The petitioner is directed to produce a copy of this judgment before the Director, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, who shall complete the Vigilance Enquiry within the time as directed above. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg