IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2011 / 10TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 18319 of 2011(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- D.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI, S/O.LATE SRI.DAMODHARAN PILLAI,KAMALALAYAM HOUSE, BEHIND MINERVA COLLEGE,MANKAMKUZHY POST, MAVELIKARA,ALLEPPEY,PIN-690558,KERALA. BY ADV. SRI.M.M.ABDUL AZIZ, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM SRI.M.G.ANON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DIVISIONAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE,PALAKKAD,PIN-678014. 2. DEPUTY CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE,SOTHERN RAILWAY, CHENNAI-600001. 3. THE CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE,SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CHENNAI-600001. 4. T.SELVARAJ,IPF,RALWAY PROTECTION FORCE, TRIVANDRUM,PIN-695001. 5. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL,RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE,MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS,RAIL BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110 001. ADV. SRI.C.S.DIAS,SC, RAILWAYS FOR R1-3&5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 18319 of 2011(L) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY SRI.G.JANARDHANAN PILLAI, ADVOCATE, PARAVUR TO THE DEPUTY SECURITY COMMISSIONER DATED 15.10.2001. EXT.P2: A TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY SRI.ARAVINDAKAHSAN TO THE DEPUTY SECURITY COMMISSIONER DATED 15.10.2001. EXT.P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY S.INDRASENAN TO THE DEPUTY SECURITY COMMISSIONER DATED 15.10.2001. EXT.P4: A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET WITH STATEMENTOF ALLEGATIONS AND LIST OF DOCUMENTS AND WITNESSES DATED 19.11.2001. EXT.P5: A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY DATED 12.11.2002. EXT.P6: A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER WITH THE COVERING LETTER BY THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY DATED 18.3.2003. EXT.P7: A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF THE APPEAL TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 15.4.2003. EXT.P8: A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 21.7.2003. EXT.P9: A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)NO.29160/2003 DATED 26.10.2006. EXT.P10: A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 9.2.2007. EXT.P11: A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REVISION SUBMITTED TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 15.3.2007. EXT.P12: A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 26.9.2007. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL // TRUE COPY // TKS P.A. TO JUDGE C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 18319 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as Circle Inspector of Police under the Police Department. While working as Sub Inspector in the Railway Protection force, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him as per Ext.P4. The said disciplinary proceedings culminated in Ext.P6 order dated 18.3.2003 whereby he was removed from service. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P7 appeal before the third respondent. As per Ext.P8 order, the said appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner has unsuccessfully attempted Ext.P5 revision. The said revision was rejected as per Ext.P12 order. Thus, it is obvious that the order rejecting revision filed by the petitioner was issued as early as on 26.9.2007 and the removal of the petitioner from service was confirmed. Despite the rejection of the revision filed against the order of his removal from service, the petitioner has not pursued the matter any further. In fact, it is thereafter that the petitioner applied and obtained appointment under the State Police Department. It is only after about four years since Ext.P12 order that the petitioner filed this Writ Petition. As W.P.(C) NO.18319 OF 2011 2 already noticed hereinbefore, the order removing the petitioner from service was issued in the year 2003 and the order rejecting the appeal was passed on 21.7.2003 and the revision was dismissed on 26.9.2007. In the said circumstances and also considering the fact that the petitioner has subsequently obtained an appointment in the Police Department, I am not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition as the petitioner is accused of delay and laches. It is a fit case wherein the doctrine of limitation has to apply. I am fortified in my view by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India and others v. Jyotish Chandra Biswas reported in 2000 (6) SCC 562. In the circumstances, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.18319 OF 2011 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.18319 OF 2011 4