Dismissed

V.v.Rajendran v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Sept 2009WP(C)/30569/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court addressed a writ petition by a suspended UDC seeking reinstatement despite a pending vigilance enquiry. Directing the department to expedite the enquiry within three months, the court held suspension is justified as reinstatement would prejudicially affect the proceedings and refused interim reinstatement.

What did the court decide?

Reinstatement refused; direction issued to complete vigilance enquiry within 3 months.

V.v.Rajendran Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 26TH BHADRA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 30569 of 2008(L)

¶6

----------------------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

--------------------------

¶9

V.V.RAJENDRAN, UDC, ESI DISENSARY, CHERUVANNUR (UNDER SUSPENSION) R/AT. VEER VEETTIL HOUSE, J.T.ROAD, VATAKARA-1.

¶10

BY ADV. MR.MILLU DANDAPANI

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

---------------------------

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALAQ, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LABOUR DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUFVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

2. DIRECTOR, INSURANCE MEDICAL SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

3. DIRECTOR, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.DILEEP MOHAN

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

W.P.(C) NO.30569/2008

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶21

P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D3-11635/07/DIMS DTD. 11.5.07 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.

¶22

P2:- COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO NO.D3-11635/07/DMS DTD. 20.6.07 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶23

P3:- COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DTD. 10.8.07 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶24

P4:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A1-3071/08/R.D.O. (O.M.) DTD. 15.9.08 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶25

P5:- COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(RT) NO.1744/2088/LBR DTD. 28.6.08 F THE IST RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.

¶26

P6:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, VIDE NO. R.I.A. CASE 88/08/24503/D.I.M.S. DTD. 30.9.08.

¶27

P7:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER VIDE NO.R.I.CASE 71/08/21868/D.I.M.S. DTD. 27.9.08 OF THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF INSURANCE MEDICAL SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶28

P8:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NALLALAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE, VIDE REF. NO.A1/233/97/I.M.O/CVR DTD. 26.2.07.

¶29

P9:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, VIDE NO.R.I.ACASE 72/08/21905/D.I.M.S. DTD. 25.8.08.

¶30

P10:- COPY OF THE ENUIRY REPORT DTD. 2.5.07 SUBMITTED BY THE FINANCE OFFICER TO THE DIRECTORATE PURSUANT TO THE GOVT. LETTER NO.8738/F2/2007/LBR DTD. 16.4.05.

¶31

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS

¶32

R2(a):- COPY OF THE ENUIRY REPORT.

¶33

R2(b):- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.3485/D1/08/VIG. DTD. 15.4.08 OF THE VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT.

TRUE COPY

P.A. TO JUDGE

tss

ANTONY DOMINIC,J.

¶38

W.P.(C).No.30569 OF 2008

¶39

Dated this the 17^th day of September, 2009.

¶40

JUDGMENT

¶41

Petitioner is a U.D. Clerk in the Insurance Medical Department at Cheruvannur. By Ext.P1 order dated 11.5.2007, he was placed under suspension on 18.5.2007. That was followed by Ext.P2 memo of charges and reply was submitted vide Ext.P3. Allegation in the memo of charges was mainly financial irregularities. The domestic enquiry held against the petitioner concluded with Ext.R2(a) report submitted by the Enquiry Officer.

¶42

It would appear that in the meanwhile, a vigilance enquiry was ordered against the petitioner. During its pendency, petitioner sought revocation of the suspension and with that prayer he filed W.P(c).No.4987/08 before this court. That writ petition was disposed of directing the respondents to consider the request for revocation of suspension. Accordingly, the matter was considered and by

¶43

WP(c).No.30569/08

¶44

¶45

Ext.P5, the request was rejected. It is also seen that, before the decision for rejection of the request for revocation of the suspension, the review committee also had considered the request of the petitioner, but the recommendation was against revoking the suspension and reinstating the petitioner. It was therefore that the writ petition was filed

¶46

praying to quash Ext.P5 and to reinstate the petitioner in service.

¶47

In view of the pendency of the vigilance enquiry, which is the reason for the continued suspension of the petitioner, this court directed the 3^rd respondent to file a statement. Accordingly, the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau filed a statement dated 4^th June, 2009. Paragraph 3 of the statement reads as under.

¶48

“The enquiry has been conducted by various enquiry officers from 19.9.2007 to 03.9.2008. From 04-09-2008 onwards the present enquiry officer Sri. E. Sunilkumar, Inspector of Police of this Unit is conducting the enquiry. The enquiry conducted so far reveals the following;

¶49

WP(c).No.30569/08

¶50

¶51

(a) The suspect officer Sri. V.V. Rajendran had been working in the office of ESI Dispensary, Beypore from 08.06.2000 to 05.06.2006.

¶52

(b) During the period, as the lone Clerk in the office, he managed the whole affairs especially the cash transactions etc of the office and thereby misappropriated huge amount of money for his personal purposes.

¶53

(c). Earlier it was suspected that important documents like Cashbook, Acquittance roll (Medical reimbursement claim, Treasury bill book etc. were either destroyed of concealed.

¶54

(d) The then Head Clerk Sri. C.P. Rajan, who had been working in the ESI Dispensary, Cheruvannur from 2.11.2002 to 30.9.2008 had not produced any of the documents before the Vigilance officers, even though a requisition to that effect was made to him.

¶55

(e) Sri. C.P. Rajan the then Head Clerk had said that no document was there in the office.

¶56

(f) But the present Head Clerk Sri. Abraham Kollinal who produced some documents on 26.3.2009 like cashbook(for the period from 25.6.2004 to 5.10.2007), treasury bill books(for the period from 7.4.2005 to 18.3.2008) medical reimbursement acquittance register(for the period from 25.4.2005 to 12.4.2006,12.4.2006 to 30.6.2006, 29.8.2006 to 22.9.2006, 22.9.2006 to 22.11.2006, 05.01.2007 to 18.1.2007,18.1.2007 to 14.3.2007 and 28.3.2007 to 30.4.2008)

¶57

WP(c).No.30569/08

¶58

¶59

(g). On perusal the period of the documents given in para f clearly covered the working period of Sri. V.V. Rajendran.

¶60

(h) It is suspected that the earlier Head Clerk Sri. C.P. Rajan who deliberately concealed the documents mentioned earlier in para “f” ”

¶61

(I) Requisition was made to the Insurance Medical Officer ESI Dispensary, Cheruvannur on 27.11.2007 by the then enquiry officer to produce documents which are needed for conducting enquiry and to assess misappropriation for the period from 20002005. But no document for that period has been produced.

¶62

(j) It is suspected that the then Head Clerk Sri. C.P. Rajan was involved in misappropriating Government money.

¶63

(k) In the statement of Insurance Medical Officer Smt. Elizabeth Paikkada, she disclosed that Sri. C.P. Rajan had bought Rs.28,950/- from her,which was found as a shortage to the medical reimbursement to be refunded to the treasury during January, 2006. She also stated that, Sri. C.P.Rajan told her that the shortage was occurred due to the payment of electricity bill of the dispensary. But there was only a payment of Rs.8,365/- as electricity bill.

¶64

(l) The statement of the Insurance Medical Officer Smt. Elizabeth Paikkada clearly brings the facts that misappropriation of money had started before the period of Sri.V.V. Rajendran itself. “

¶65

WP(c).No.30569/08

¶66

¶67

Proceeding further it is stated that the enquiry is being continued and the department is now proceeding to complete the same. It is also stated that if at this stage the petitioner is reinstated, that will prejudicially affect the enquiry.

¶68

Admittedly, the vigilance enquiry is pending against the petitioner and substantial progress in the enquiry has been made by the respondents. Even if enquiry is pending, continued suspension of the delinquent employee can be justified only if his reinstatement will prejudicially affect the on going enquiry. In the statement filed that precisely is the apprehension expressed by the 3^rd respondent and on the materials available, I have no reason to conclude otherwise. Therefore, at this stage it will not be proper for this court to order reinstatement of the petitioner. However, there is no reason to delay the enquiry unnecessarily. As already seen the petitioner is under suspension from May, 2007. Domestic enquiry has been concluded with Ext.R2(a) report and now the vigilance enquiry alone is continued.

¶69

WP(c).No.30569/08

¶70

¶71

Therefore, it is directed that the 3^rd respondent shall complete the vigilance enquiry against the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 3 months from today. Depending upon the outcome of the enquiry, the

¶72

respondents will finalise the proceedings against the petitioner, without any further delay in the matter.

¶73

(ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE

¶74

vi/

V.v.Rajendran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.v.Rajendran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.S.Anil Raj Vs State of Kerala and Others

C.K.Rajesh Vs the State of Kerala and Others

R.Anandan Vs the State of Kerala

Abdulla & Ummer Estates (P) Limited Vs District Collector,Ernakulam

R.Sudha Vs State of Kerala

P.K.Rajendran & 7 Others Vs State of Kerala