JUDGMENT This writ petition (civil) has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner, who is arrayed as the 3 rd accused in Crime No.4/2024/SIU-1 of 2024 of VACB Kozhikode seeking the following prayers: i) To call for the records leading to Exhibit-P3 to P7 & P9 and quash them by issuing a writ of certiorari. ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding 5 th respondent to re-instate the petitioner into the post of State Program Manager (Finance & Proposal Examination) in Kudumbashree State Mission at the earliest. ii) An to pass such other appropriate writs, orders or directions which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case so as to secure the ends of justice. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. Perused the relevant materials available. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the petitioner got arrayed as the 3 rd accused in Crime No.4/2024/SIU-1 of VACB, Thiruvananthapuram and subsequent that as per Ext.P3, the Inspector of Police sent a letter to the Director of VACB, Thiruvananthapuram to relieve the petitioner from the present post, since there was likelihood that he would influence the witnesses and also would destroy the documents in connection with crime No.4/2024. Pursuant to Ext.P3, as per Ext.P4, the Director of VACB issued a letter to the Additional Chief Secretary (Vigilance Department) in the same line. As on 20.11.2024, Ext.P5 was issued by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Principal Secretary, Local Self Government Department, whereby the Additional Secretary recommended transfer of the petitioner on the finding that, allowing the petitioner to continue in the present post would be detrimental to the investigation, since he could very well influence the witnesses and destroy relevant documents in connection with the crime. 4. Ext.P6 is the letter issued by the Under Secretary for and on behalf of the Principal Secretary, LSGD, recommending disciplinary action against the petitioner. Ext.P7 is the order, whereby it was decided by the Executive Director of Kudumbashree, to relieve the petitioner from the job, without any salary or allowance, since he could not be accommodated in any other post similar to that of the present post. Ext.P7 is the order, whereby it was decided by the Executive Director of Kudumbashree, to relieve the petitioner from the job, without any salary or allowance, since he could not be accommodated in any other post similar to that of the present post. At this juncture, the petitioner has filed Ext.P8 representation dated 14.10.2025 to the Executive Director, State Poverty Education Mission (Kudumbashree) requesting to re-instate him to the post of State Program Manager (Finance and Proposal Examination). 5. Admittedly, the petitioner worked as the State Program Manager (Finance and Proposal Examination) and on finding misappropriation of Rs.3,74,56,200/- (Rupees Three Crores Seventy Four Lakh Fifty Six Thousand Two Hundred), crime was registered against the petitioner and other accused persons. Soon after registration of the crime, the petitioner approached this Court and sought quashment of the FIR itself vide Crl.M.C. No.5278 of 2025. The same was dismissed by this Court as per the order dated 25.07.2025, after discussing the allegations in detail and highlighting the necessity of investigation in a serious crime. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner has been working as a temporary employee of the institution and when his involvement in the matter of misappropriation of Rs.3,74,56,200/-, while working as State Program Manager (Finance and Proposal Examination), was noticed, as per the exhibits discussed, he is now relieved from duty to avoid influencing the witnesses and destruction of documents in connection with criminal case involving crores of rupees, since he could not be accommodated in any other post. A temporary employee, who found involved in misappropriation of crores of rupees could not claim any right of employment. Thus, the direction sought for in this writ petition to reinstate him in the same post is akin to allow him to continue the misappropriation and to destroy the evidence in a serious crime. In such circumstance, the prayers in this writ petition cannot be considered as the same would impair the investigation and also cause destruction of records pertaining to a serious crime. In such view of the matter, the prayers in this writ petition are liable to fail. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed.