IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD MAY 2011 / 13TH VAISAKHA 1933 WP(C).No. 12809 of 2011(A) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- EX.KAMAL SINGH, NO. 974471470, INSPECTOR, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE UNIT ASG, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PRESENTLY WORKING AT CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE UNIT SECL, BILASPUR - 495 006. BY ADVS. SRI.G.SASIDHARAN CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL SRI.VISHNU S. CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE SENIOR COMMANDANT, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE UNIT, AIRPORT SECURITY UNIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004. 2. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE UNIT, SECL, BILASPUR - 495 006. 3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, WEST ZONE, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE UNIT, KHARGAR, NAVI MUMBAI - 410 201. 4. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI -1. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASG.INDIA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs K.SURENDRA MOHAN,J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.12809 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MAY, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner while working in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) as an Inspector was proceeded against for certain lapses. A disciplinary enquiry was ordered and report of enquiry was obtained. On receipt of the report of enquiry, Ext.P2 final order was passed imposing a penalty of withholding of one increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect. Petitioner challenged Ext.P2 in appeal and the appellate authority found that the punishment imposed on him was liable to be enhanced. Therefore, Ext.P3 show cause notice was issued to him proposing to impose a punishment of “removal from service” on him. Petitioner has challenged Ext.P3 in this writ petition. 2. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, Ext.P3 is only a show cause notice and not an order imposing punishment on the petitioner. It was up to the petitioner to have submitted his objections to the proposal and waited for the authority to pass a final order. Instead of that, he has rushed to this Court and therefore, it is contended that this W.P.(C)No. 12809 of 2011 -2- writ petition is premature. 3. I see from Ext.P3 that the same is only a show cause notice and not an order imposing penalty on the petitioner. It was up to the petitioner to have submitted his objections to the proposal contained in Ext.P3 instead of rushing to this Court with this writ petition. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the time stipulated by Ext.P3 for submission of his objections is already over and therefore a suitable extension of time may be granted to him. I am of the view that such an extension of time can be granted. 4. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to submit his objections to Ext.P3, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the petitioner submits his objections within the time stipulated above, the 3rd respondent shall consider the objections and shall pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE. ma