IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2008 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1930 WA.No. 1058 of 2008() -------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.37538/2007 Dated 04/03/2008 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER ------------------- SUNDARESAN NAIR, RETIRED POLICE CONSTABLE (PCT 4456), RESIDING AT ERAPPUKUZHI PUTHEN VEEDU, KODAPPANAKKUNNU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.J.MATHEW RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SANDESH RAJA BY SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC , KPSC THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B. Koshy & P.N.Ravindran, JJ. -------------------------------------- W.A. No. 1058 of 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of May, 2008 Judgment Koshy,J. Appellant/Petitioner was a police constable. He retired on superannuation in March, 2003. A disciplinary action was initiated against him in 1996 on the allegation that there was lapse on his part while he was posted for night duty at Thiruvananthapuram University College. After enquiry, an order was passed on 24.8.1996 barring three increments without cumulative effect. No appeal was filed against the above decision. After his retirement, he filed a review petition. That was dismissed by Ext.P1. It is contended that the Government originally thought that barring of three increments is excessive and, therefore, it was decided tentatively to reduce the punishment to barring of two increments instead of three increments and Government consulted the Public Service Commission for the purpose. PSC was of the view that review petition was filed after about seven years and, that too, after retirement. As per the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner, he did not file the petition in time fearing displeasure and victimisation. W.A.No. 1058/2008 2 Even after his retirement in 2003, he did not file the review application within a reasonable time. He filed the application only in 2005. It is submitted that consultation with the PSC is not mandatory as it is a minor punishment. But, the learned single judge was of the view that even if consultation with PSC is not mandatory, Government can always consult the PSC. In any event, review application was not filed within a reasonable time and the petitioner has not filed a statutory appeal and slept over the matter for six years. The learned single Judge has considered the aspect of delay after considering his explanation. It is submitted that there is no ground for interference or directing the Government to grant retrospective promotion to the petitioner after his retirement. We see no ground to interfere in the impugned judgment. Appeal is dismissed. J.B.Koshy Judge P.N.Ravindran Judge vaa W.A.No. 1058/2008 3 W.A.No. 1058/2008 4 J.B. KOSHY AND P.N.RAVINDRAN,JJ. ------------------------------------- W.A. No. 1058 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Judgment Dated:28th May, 2008