IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 21ST JUNE 2010 / 31ST JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19205 of 2010(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- N.SUGUNANDAN, JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT, MUSEUMS AND ZOOS, THRISSUR RESIDING AT SOUPARNIKA, SREENAGAR-270, PATTATHANAM P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CULTURAL AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR, MUSEUM AND ZOOS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, SOUTHERN RANGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE VIGILANCE TRIBUNAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, VIGILANCE TRIBUNAL OFFICE, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. ARAVIND BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.19205 OF 2010 (A) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a Junior Superintendent, Museums and Zoos, Thiruvananthapuram. By Ext.P1 order he was placed under suspension on allegations of misconduct. This was followed by Ext.P2 memo of charges to which the petitioner has submitted Ext.P3 statement of defence. Subsequently, the petitioner was reinstated in service and later by Ext.P7 order, Government referred the matter for an enquiry by the 5th respondent. On receipt of Ext.P7 the 5th respondent Tribunal issued Ext.P8 notice and according to the counsel for the petitioner he has already entered appearance before the Tribunal. In this writ petition petitioner challenges Ext.P7, in the alternative, he also seeks a direction to the 5th respondent to expedite the proceedings. 2. Having regard to the nature of allegations raised, it is for the first respondent to determine as to whether the case was to be referred to the Tribunal or not. Reference being done based on this exclusive right of the respondents I do not think that this court will WPC.No. 19205/2010p :2 : be justified in sitting in judgment over the decision of the first respondent. This is all the more so, for the reason that the petitioner has not succeeded in establishing any mala fides or arbitrariness in Ext.P7. Therefore the challenge against Ext.P7 has to fail. In so far as the alternate prayer to expedite the proceedings before the 5th respondent Tribunal is concerned. it is stated that pursuant to Ext.P8, the parties have already entered appearance and proceedings have already commenced. In view of the above, there is no necessity to issue any directions as sought. However, leaving it open to the petitioner to move an appropriate application before the Tribunal itself to expedite the proceedings, I dispose of this writ petition. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No. 19205/2010p :3 :