IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2010 / 17TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 7320 of 2010(L) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, KAROOR HOUSE, IRINGOLE PO, PERUMBAVOOR(DEPUTY RANGER, UNDER SUSPENSION, THATTEKKAD,BIRD SANCTUARY) BY ADV. SRI.N.K.KARNIS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (ADMINISTRATION), HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHPAURAM. 2. PRINCIPAL CHIEF FOREST CONSERVATOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ASSISTANT WILD LIFE WARDEN, THATTEKKAD BIRD SANCTUARY, THATTEKKADU, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.7320 OF 2010 (L) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a Deputy Ranger in the Forest Department. While working at Tattekkad Forest Station, by Ext.P1 order dated 18.9.2008 he was placed under suspension pending disciplinary action. Subsequently, Ext.P2 memo of charges was issued to the petitioner in June, 2009 and Ext.P3 is his explanation. Immediately thereafter he was reinstated in service by Ext.P4 dated 17.7.2009 without prejudice to the continuance of the disciplinary proceedings already initiated against him. 2. Petitioner submits that, since there has not been any progress in the matter and that in the meanwhile by Ext.P5 order dated 4.12.2009, certain Officers have been promoted to the post of Range Officer and that he has been denied promotion on account of the pendency of the disciplinary action. Petitioner contends that, the promotions by Ext.P5 being only temporary, pendency of disciplinary action should not have been taken as a reason to deny promotion to him. It is also his contention that even for regular promotion pendency of disciplinary action is not WPC.No. 7320/2010 :2 : a bar for consideration and therefore he ought not have been overlooked. 3. However,in the counter affidavit filed, respondents have stated that, when 14 vacancies of Forest Rangers had arisen, Ext.P5 order was issued temporarily promoting Deputy Rangers. It is also stated that, while issuing Ext.P5, certain measure of caution was exercised to weed out the candidates who had serious disciplinary action/vigilance case/court case pending against them. It is further stated that the post of Forest Ranger has been declared as a Gazetted post and that in public interest, it should not be filled up with Officers facing such proceedings. It is also stated that applying the aforesaid criteria not only the petitioner has been excluded from the list of Deputy Rangers, persons having seniority Nos.1,6,8,18,26,29,33,40,46,49 and 50 were also excluded. 4. Admittedly, the promotions ordered by Ext.P5 are temporary promotions, as provided under Rule 31(1)(a) of Part II KS and SSR. While effecting such temporary promotions, even seniors who are liable to be promoted can be exempted for valid reasons. In this case, being a Gazetted post, respondents have WPC.No. 7320/2010 :3 : decided to exclude persons facing disciplinary action, Vigilance case or court case. Considering the responsibility attached to the post and duties which such Range Officers have to discharge, when the respondents are taken a conscious decision to exclude persons who are facing court/departmental proceedings and have effected promotion on that basis, this court will not be justified in taking a view that reasons so stated are not valid. On the other hand the criteria adopted is a valid one. Therefore I am not persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that his exclusion was illegal for any reasons. 5. Counsel contended that if for regular promotion, petitioner is entitled to be considered, there is no reason why he should have been excluded in the case of temporary promotions. Even for regular promotions those facing disciplinary actions are only eligible to be considered and the DPC is required to adopt sealed cover proceedings, which will be opened only on the conclusion of the departmental proceedings. Therefore, it cannot be held that those facing departmental proceedings are liable o be promoted, even in spite of the pendency of the disciplinary action. Therefore I am not persuaded to think that the petitioner WPC.No. 7320/2010 :4 : ought to have been promoted and that his exclusion from Ext.P5 is illegal. 6. Be that as it may, for the reason that disciplinary action is pending, petitioner cannot be kept in uncertainty. It is the duty of the respondents to ensure that disciplinary action, if any, against the petitioner shall be expedited and concluded. The 2nd respondent is directed to take steps for expeditious completion of disciplinary action initiated against the petitioner by Ext.P2.This shall be done as expeditiously as possible and at any r ate within 3 months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Petitioner shall place a copy of the judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 2nd respondent for compliance. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No. 7320/2010 :5 :