IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 7TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 25929 of 2011(M) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- S. SREEKUMAR, S/O. SASI, AGED 33 YEARS, NO.994240044 SI/EXE, CISF UNIT, AIRPORT SECTOR, CALICUT. BY ADV. SMT.SOUMINI JAMES RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI – 110 001. 2. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL, CISF, SOUTH ZONE HQRS, "D" BLOCK RAJAJI BHAVAN, BASANT NAGAR, CHENNAI – 600 090. 3. COMMANDANT, CISF COCHIN PORT TRUST UNIT, WILLINGTON ISLAND, COCHIN - 09. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMANDANT, CISF COCHIN PORT TRUST UNIT, WILLINGTON ISLAND, COCHIN – 09. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASG. OF INDIA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/09/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 25929 of 2011(M) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22-02-2010. EXT.P2 COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED 16-03-2010 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 14-04-2010 TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 21/04/2010. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 18/08/2010. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J --------------------------------------------- W.P.(c)No.25929 of 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of September 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P6 order dated 29.9.2010 passed in revision, confirming Ext.P2 proceedings by which a minor punishment of censure has been imposed on the petitioner. 2. According to the petitioner, he is an ambitious and enthusiastic Sub Inspector/Exe in CISF. While he was serving under the fourth respondent, a memorandum of charge was issued to him alleging that while he was detailed for duty for checking and transportation of passengers, he was found chatting with the other members of the force by his superior officer. When he was questioned about the said act, he misbehaved with the officer and picked up an argument with his superior officer. Since the alleged conduct amounted to misconduct and insubordination, disciplinary proceedings WPC No.25929/2011 2 were initiated against him, which culminated in Ext.P2 order. The petitioner challenged Ext.P2 in appeal, which has been disposed of by Ext.P4 confirming the punishment. As per Ext.P6, the revision filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed. The petitioner challenges the said proceedings in this writ petition. 3. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is not guilty of the alleged misconduct for the reason that he was giving instruction to his subordinates with the object of ensuring that the duty assigned to him was discharged in the most efficient manner. The counsel for the petitioner also points out that the gate to which he was assigned was one through which a lot of people were entering and exiting and therefore for the purpose of efficient discharge of his duties, proper instructions to the subordinates was absolutely necessary. 4. The Assistant Solicitor General has taken notice for the respondents. It is submitted on his behalf that Ext.P6 order is dated 29.9.2010. As on date, one year has WPC No.25929/2011 3 elapsed since the passing of the said order. Absolutely, no reason has been stated for the delay in challenging Ext.P10. It is further pointed out that though the petitioner had been detailed for duty to a particular place, the superior officer found that he was not available at the place of his duty, but that he was chatting with his mates. When he was questioned about the said conduct, he picked up an argument with his superior officer thereby committing misconduct and insubordination. In spite of the above gross dereliction of duty, only a minor punishment of censure has been imposed on him, which according to the counsel shows the lenient attitude adopted by the authorities. 5. The counsel for the petitioner replies by stating that the petitioner had met with an accident and that he is a person who is undergoing treatment for cancer. However, it is admitted that the above facts have not been stated in the writ petition by the petitioner. 6. I have considered the rival contentions anxiously. WPC No.25929/2011 4 As rightly pointed out by the counsel for the respondents, Ext.P6 is dated 29.9.2010 and as on date, an year has passed since the passing of the said order. Absolutely, no reasons are stated for the inordinate delay in challenging Ext.P6. Though the counsel has made a statement at the bar that the petitioner had suffered injuries in an accident and that he is a person suffering from cancer, there are absolutely no documents or materials to support the said contention. Such statements also have not been made in the writ petition. 7. The petitioner was alleged to have committed misconduct and insubordination by leaving the place of duty assigned to him and indulging in chatting with his mates. When he was questioned, he picked up an argument with his superior officer. The allegations have been examined in Exts.P2, P4 and P6 by the appellate and revisional authorities. They have found that the allegations are justified. In spite of the above, the punishment that is imposed on the petitioner is only a WPC No.25929/2011 5 minor penalty of censure. May be, it is for the said reason that the petitioner did not think it fit to challenge Ext.P6 immediately on the passing of the said order. This writ petition appears to have filed much later, as an afterthought. 8. I do not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned proceedings. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/ true copy p.s.to judge