IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2008 / 28TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 15113 of 2008(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M.O.PUSHPENDRAN DEPUTY DIRECTOR (GENERAL), DIRECTORATE OF VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME AND VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CHAIRMAN DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE (MEMBER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION IN CHARGE OF GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT) KPSC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1,2,4 SMT.M.R.SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).15113/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 18th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is working as Deputy Director of Education in the Vocational Higher Secondary Directorate, Thiruvananthapuram. He is aggrieved that though he was considered by the DPC for the post of Joint Director of Public Instruction, he was not included in the select list essentially because of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him, as evidenced by Ext.P9 memo of charges. 2. On instructions, learned Government Pleader submits that Ext.P9 was essentially a notice to the petitioner to show cause why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against him in terms of Rule 15 of the K.C.S (C.C. & A) Rules. Petitioner submitted his objections thereto. Government apparently considered whether the allegations against the petitioner have to be referred to the Vigilance Tribunal. Decision taken by the authorities is to the effect that the allegations are not W.P.(C).15113/2008 2 grave enough to warrant a prosecution before the Vigilance Court. Ultimately, the Government has decided to continue with the disciplinary action, as per Ext.P9. This decision of the Government is expressed vide G.O.(Rt).136/2008/Vig. dated 10.6.2008. 3. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the proceedings which have been initiated against the petitioner, as evidenced by Ext.P9, should be completed at the earliest. If the Government is of the view that the charges levelled against the petitioner are not grave enough to warrant a vigilance action, but also feel that disciplinary action should be taken, there is no reason why enquiry should be prolonged. 4. In the result, writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to take appropriate action to see that the disciplinary action, proposed to be taken against the petitioner under Ext.P9 memo of charges, as decided in G.O.(Rt).136/2008/Vig. dated 10.6.2008, is completed W.P.(C).15113/2008 3 at the earliest, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Other contentions of the petitioner are left open. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs