ANIL KUMAR Vs. DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext. P5. It is seen that three persons had been placed under suspension, including himself. A statement has been filed on behalf of the fourth respondent -- Vigilance Department. But, the facts require that interference is essential.

(2.) Petitioner was appointed as a Work Superintendent in the Soil Conservation Office, Neyyattinkara, sometime in the year 1999. Shortly thereafter, there were certain allegations against a group of officers including him that in the matter of work carried out by the beneficiary committee for soil conservation work in Kulathoor, certain fictitious entries were made in collusion with a private contractor. On the basis of the allegations, the petitioner and some others were placed under suspension on 10th April 2000. After an enquiry, it is seen that he had been reinstated on 23rd August 2000. He had been accommodated at Kottiyam, another distant station.

(3.) Apparently, vigilance investigations are progressing and presently, Ext. P5 suspension order is issued on the recommendation of the Director, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau. Sri Satheesan appearing for the petitioner submits that the suspension, practically on the same set of allegations, is without justification and against public interest. He submits that although vigilance investigations are going on, it need not have necessarily resulted in the suspension order as well.