to him, it is only proper for the competent authorities to place him under suspension or to transfer him from the present office. To support and sustain his contention especially with regard to the maintainability of the Writ Petition with the said prayers, the petitioner placed reliance on Ext.P6 judgment of this Court in O.P.36185/2007. A scanning of Ext.P6 judgment would reveal that the case of the petitioner stands on a totally different footing. The petitioner cannot succeed in this Writ Petition relying on Ext.P6 judgment. That was a case where criminal cases are pending before the court and of course, the petitioner therein was the defacto complainant. In this case it is true that the petitioner has filed Crl.M.P before the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. But, the direction in Ext.P3 would reveal that the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge was of the opinion that a preliminary enquiry is warranted even to bring out a prima facie case against the fourth respondent. As per Ext.P3, if materials are collected warranting investigation, a case has to be registered and F.I.R has to be forwarded to the court before proceeding with investigation. Therefore, according to me, it is too premature to presume that the fourth respondent has committed any offence or misconduct as alleged by the petitioner. In such a situation, the petitioner is not even entitled to maintain this Writ Petition and, at any rate, there is absolutely no merit in the contention of the
