IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2008 / 10TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 1754 of 2008(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.V. VASANTHY, JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT, DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICE, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE-20. BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 2. THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF TREASURIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MANOJ KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No. 1754 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 30th January, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was working as Junior Superintendent in the District Treasury, Kozhikode. She was placed under suspension as per order dated 21.3.2005, while working as Junior Superintendent on grounds of dereliction of duty and irresponsibility in discharging duties. It seems that a vigilance case was registered against the Superintendent and certain other staff of the Sub Treasury at Kozhikode, involving allegations of fraudulent withdrawal of money. Apparently, the conduct of the petitioner has also been investigated, though the petitioner is not an accused, according to her. 2. A vigilance case was registered as VC No.2/05/KKD against Sri. S.Kannan, Senior Accountant of the Additional Sub Treasury, Kozhikode for offences punishable under Section 13 (1) (c)(d) ii read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 and Section 465 and 409 of IPC. The crux of the allegations seems to be that the above mentioned Kannan while W.P ( C) No. 1754 of 2008 2 working as Senior Accountant, Additional Sub Treasury, Kozhikode during the period from October, 2003 till 19.11.2004, abused his official position and forged 13 sales tax refund bills for an amount of Rs.67, 66,778/-. He fraudulently encashed the bills and misappropriated the bill amounts. After a preliminary departmental enquiry, the then Treasury Officer, the above mentioned Senior Accountant Kannan, another Senior Accountant,the Additional Sub Treasury Officer, the petitioner and yet another Senior Accountant in the Treasury were placed under suspension. Thereafter, the petitioner’s suspension was revoked, as evidenced by Exhibit P7. But obviously, this was without prejudice to the departmental disciplinary action and also vigilance enquiry. It is common that departmental proceeding have not proceeded further, at least in the case of the petitioner . 3. In the meanwhile,Departmental Promotion Committee for the post of Sub Treasury Officer/Assistant Treasury Officer/Senior Superintendent met on 24.12.2007 and the recommendations were approved by the Government. A select list was published as Exhibit P2. Petitioner has been included as W.P ( C) No. 1754 of 2008 3 Serial No.51. But the petitioner was not promoted apparently on account of the fact that she is involved in the vigilance case mentioned above. Contending that suspension has been revoked and that she has not been arrayed as accused in the vigilance case and that by operation of the select list, her juniors have been promoted, the petitioner filed Exhibit P3 representation before the Director inter alia, requesting that she may be given promotion taking note of her inclusion in the select list. Two other requests have been made therein including one for dropping of the departmental proceedings. That prayer is not pressed, at this stage. 4. By Exhibit P4 judgment, this Court directed the Director to take a decision on Exhibit P3, within a time frame. There is a dispute as to whether the direction has been complied with within the time frame stipulated in Exhibit P4. Apparently, the petitioner had moved this Court in a Contempt of Court Case. Thereafter, Exhibit P5 has been issued by the Director and the same reads as follows: “Please refer your representation dt.25.5.2007. I am to inform you that your are not exonerated from the W.P ( C) No. 1754 of 2008 4 Vigilance Case pertaining to Additional Sub Treasury, Kozhikode in which your case is related. Since the enquiry by vigilance and anti Corruption Bureau, in this case has not been finalised, your representation cannot be considered as per the rules in force. 5. Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Exhibit P5. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, the Investigating Officer, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Kozhikode, has filed a statement which reveals that Sri.S.Kannan, former Senior Accountant of the Additional Sub Treasury Office is the accused in VC 2/05 registered for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, as mentioned above. The conduct of other responsible officers who were functioning in the Sub Treasury Kozhikode, during the relevant period, including the petitioner, is also under scrutiny. On the question as to whether the petitioner is an accused, it is stated as follows: W.P ( C) No. 1754 of 2008 5 “It is submitted that the petitioner has not been made an accused in this case so far. Investigation of this case is yet to be continued.” 6. It can therefore be safely inferred that the petitioner as such is not an accused in the vigilance case. Departmental proceedings are yet to be continued and petitioner is admittedly included in the select list for the post of Sub Treasury Officer in Exhibit P2. 7. In the circumstances, I am of the view that petitioner’s request as contained in Exhibit P3 in so far as it relates to a request for promotion as Sub Treasury Officer, taking note of her inclusion in Exhibit P2 select list is to be considered without reference to the pendency of the vigilance investigation. The reason given in Exhibit P4 for not considering such request is neither tenable nor appealing. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to pass orders on Exhibit P3 representation in so far it relates to the petitioner’s request for considering her for promotion to the post of Sub Treasury Officer on the basis of her W.P ( C) No. 1754 of 2008 6 inclusion in Exhibit P2 select without reference to the pendency of the investigation in vigilance case 2/05 of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Kozhikode, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (V.GIRI, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No. 1754 of 2008 7 K.THANKAPPAN,J CRL.A. NO.92 OF 1999 ORDER 25th May, 2007