IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 21ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 2ND PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 762 of 2011(U) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. G.SAKTHIDHARAN NAIR, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, SHYAM NIVAS, AANARI, CHERUTHANA, ALAPPUZHA. 2. S.MADHUSOODHANAN NAIR, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.SIVARAMAN NAIR, PARIYARATH, KUNNATHALUMMOODU, KAYAMKULAM. 3. M.NAZAR HANEEF, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.K.HANEEFA, METTUMTHRAYIL, PAYIPPAD.P.O., KARIPPAD. BY ADV. SRI.E.RAFEEK SRI.GOKUL DAS V.V.H. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 001 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN- 695 001 3. THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN-695 001 4. PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.762 OF 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT The first petitioner is a Mineral Revenue Inspector attached to the District Office, Department of Mining and Geology, Alappuzha. Petitioners 2 and 3 are also working in the same department as driver and night watcher respectively. They have been suspended on allegations of accepting bribe from one Sarath for granting mining permit for stocking sand. Along with the petitioners, three other employees including two lady staff were also arrested. Pursuant to such arrest, the petitioners were placed under suspension on 11.5.2009. Against the continued suspension, the petitioners filed a review petition, which was dismissed by Ext.P9 order. The petitioners are challenging the said order. According to the petitioners, by Ext.P8 letter, the State Public Information Officer of the Vigilance and Anti- Corruption Bureau has, in proceedings under the Right to Information Act, informed the petitioners that the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau has recommended to the Government W.P.(C)No.762/11 2 that the employees be reinstated outside the district from where they have been suspended. It is contrary to that recommendation Ext.P9 order has been passed by the Government, is their contention. The petitioners therefore, seek the following reliefs: “(i) to issue a writ of certiorari and quash Exhibit P9 as illegal and arbitrary. (ii) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioners into service. (iii) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to conclude the vigilance case/proceedings initiated against the petitioners within a time frame”. 2. The learned Government Pleader submits that although it is true that the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau has recommended reinstating the petitioners and transferring them outside the district, the said recommendation is not binding on the Government and the Government has decided not to reinstate them on account of the fact that the allegations against them are very serious in nature. According to the learned Government Pleader, if the petitioners are now reinstated, they are likely to indulge in the very same misconducts outside the district also. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. W.P.(C)No.762/11 3 Normally, in matters involving corruption, I would not have interfered with orders of suspension. But, here the petitioners were suspended almost two years ago. The vigilance enquiry is likely to be prolonged as is usually the case in corruption cases. Probably, it is taking into account that facts also, the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau had recommended reinstating the petitioners and posting them outside the district. The contention of the learned Government Pleader that if they are reinstated they are likely to indulge in such misconducts outside the District also does not appeal to me. That would be so in all kinds of suspensions. The respondents can very well post the petitioners in non-sensitive posts where there is little scope for such corrupt practices. In any event it is the duty of their superior officers to ensure that they do not indulge in any corrupt practices. In the above circumstances, I am inclined to direct the Government to accept the recommendations of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau. Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the second respondent to take further steps for implementation of the recommendations of the Vigilance and W.P.(C)No.762/11 4 Anti-Corruption Bureau, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.762/11 5