IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 17TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 24291 of 2009(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.K.RAJAN, PC R 3334, 'A' COMPANY, DISTRICT ARMED RESERVE POLICE CAMP, THRISSUR, RAMAVARMAPURAM P.O. BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SRI.S.A.ANAND RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THRISSUR RANGE, THRISSUR, PIN-680 001. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THRISSUR, PIN-680 001. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 24291 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 8th day of September, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner, while working as a Police Constable in District Armed Reserve, Thrissur, was imposed with the punishment of removal from service by Ext. P1 order allegedly on the basis of the conviction in a criminal case by a criminal court. He was acquitted by Ext. P2 judgment of this Court in revision and he was reinstated in service by Ext. P3. After rejoining duty, the petitioner filed Ext. P4 representation for getting all his service benefits, which he would have been entitled to had he been in service. Despite reminders, no orders have been passed. The petitioner obtained Exts.P7(a) and P7 (b) informations under the Right to Information Act, wherein it was stated that for want of the file relating to disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and consequent non-regularization of the period he was out of service consideration of Ext. P4 is being delayed. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to give the petitioner all the benefits he would have been entitled to had he continued in service including full pay and allowances and promotions within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court; ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the respondents to treat the period of suspension of the petitioner from service and the period he was kept out of service consequent on the order of removal from service as duty for all purposes and give him all consequential service benefits within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.” 2. On 7-10-2009, this Court passed the following interim order: “The first respondent shall file an affidavit on or before 2.11.2009, W.P.C. No. 24291/2009 -: 2 :- affirming the following aspects: 1. Whether the petitioner's services were terminated on the basis of his conviction in the criminal case? 2. The stage at which the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner was situated, when Ext. P1 order was passed. 3. Whether any further action has been taken pursuant to Ext. P7(b)?” Now, an affidavit has been filed, wherein it has been stated that even prior to the conviction of the petitioner, the enquiry had been completed and subsequently after his reinstatement in service that file was missing. It is further submitted that in the enquiry, the petitioner was found guilty of the charges levelled against him. Since the criminal case was pending, no further action was taken on the basis of the enquiry report. Since he was convicted by the criminal court, show cause notice was issued and after considering his reply, he was removed from service by Ext. P1 order. It was only for avoiding parallel proceedings, further proceedings were not taken on the basis of the enquiry report. But, after the acquittal of the petitioner, further proceedings could not be taken because P.R files were missing. It is also stated therein that in the criminal case, the petitioner was acquitted not on merits, but on the technical ground of want of sanction under Section 197 of the Crl. P.C. The learned Government Pleader submits that the file has now been traced out and the matter can be finalised within a short time. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to finalise the matter relating to the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The contentions of the petitioner are left open W.P.C. No. 24291/2009 -: 3 :- to be agitated again if necessary, after a decision is taken by the 1st respondent. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE.