IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN SATURDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 28342 of 2011(P) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------------- A.J.STEPHEN, (ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE(UNDER SUSPENSION), KUTHIATHODU POLICE STATION), POLICE QUARTERS, KUTHIATHODU P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.K.A.BALAN SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SRI.S.A.ANAND RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM RANGE, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN-682 031. 2. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHENGANNUR, PIN-689 121. R1 & R2 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI. R.M.ABDULKADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JM WP(C).No. 28342 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS : EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A2(a)/4220/2011-ER DTD.18.4.2011 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A2(a)/4220/2011-ER DTD.25.5.2011 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A2(a)/4220/2011-ER DTD.26.5.2011 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.7.6.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES NO.1395/PR-2/2011/CSD DTD.5.5.2011 WITH THE APPENDED STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS. EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DTD.30.8.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO EXT.P5. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL \TRUE COPY\\ PA TO JUDGE JM K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J --------------------------------------------- W.P.(c)No.28342 of 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of November 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this writ petition complaining against the pendency of disciplinary proceedings initiated against him, indefinitely. 2. The petitioner, while working as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Aroor Police Station was suspended from service pending disciplinary action by Ext.P1 order dated 18.4.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation to the first respondent and on consideration thereof, he was directed to be reinstated in service as per Ext.P2 order dated 25.5.2011. However, on the very next day, Ext.P2 order was set aside by the first respondent herself and the petitioner was directed to continue under suspension as per Ext.P3 order. 3. The second respondent is the person appointed as the Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry into the charges of misconduct against the petitioner. A memo of WPC No.28342 of 2011 2 charges has been served on the petitioner on 19.8.2011, which is Ext.P5. Though the petitioner has submitted his explanation Ext.P6, as early as on 30.8.2011, he complains that no further action has been taken in the matter, till date. The petitioner has, in the above circumstances, filed this writ petition challenging the action of the respondents in keeping him under suspension as well as in keeping the disciplinary proceedings against him pending indefinitely. 4. A statement has been filed by the first respondent. According to the first respondent, the petitioner had been reinstated in service as per Ext.P2 on the basis of his representation. Even, according to the first respondent, on the very same day Sri.A.J.Stephen ASI (Gr), contacted the complainant in Cr.90/10 of Aroor Police Station and made them convene a press conference at the Ernakulam Press Club in which baseless and damaging allegations were made against the first respondent. It is revealed that the ASI (Gr) is continuing his unholy nexus with anti-social elements in Aroor and his reinstatement back in service may cause further WPC No.28342 of 2011 3 problems in maintenance of discipline and decorum of the Police Service. Therefore, his reinstatement was set aside, vide office order No.A2(a) 4220/2011 ER dated 26.05.2011. 5. However, the statement does not contain any explanation regarding the delay in proceeding with and completing the enquiry proceedings initiated against the petitioner. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader, I am not satisfied that there are any grounds to interfere with the order of suspension passed against the petitioner, at this stage. Since a domestic enquiry into the allegations against the petitioner has already been ordered and is pending, it is only appropriate that the outcome of the enquiry is awaited. However, the enquiry cannot be left to drag on indefinitely causing needless prejudice to the petitioner and his career prospects. It is incumbent on the part of the authorities to see that such proceedings are completed within a reasonable time. I notice that the petitioner has been remaining under WPC No.28342 of 2011 4 suspension from 18.4.2011 onwards. Therefore, it is imperative that the disciplinary proceedings are completed at the earliest. 7. In the above circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to complete the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of four months from today. It is also made clear that the first respondent would be free to review the order of suspension passed against the petitioner in the meantime and to modify the same, if circumstances warrant. Sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE true copy P.S.TO JUDGE css/