IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 26TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2826 of 2010(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.P.VAREED, S/O. P0ULOSE.A.V., ANKAMALY HOUSE, THIROOR, MULAMKUNNATHUKAVU.P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. (INSPECTOR, K.S.R.T.C., ALUVA) BY ADV. SRI.C.V.MILTON SRI.K.P.JUSTINE (KARIPAT) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-23 2. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,(ADMINISTRATION) K.S.R.T.C., TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-23. MR.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.2826 of 2010 (C) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 15th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner, who is an Inspector working under the 1st respondent, is aspiring promotion to the post of ATO. His claim for promotion was overlooked on account of certain punishments imposed on him based on disciplinary actions. Finally, pursuant to Ext.P9 judgment of this Court, his claim was considered by the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation and rejected by Ext.P10. It is challenging Ext.P10, this writ petition has been filed. 2. Ext.P10, in so far as it is relevant, reads thus:- “The name of the petitioner has been considered by the DPC in its meeting held on 22/05/2008 for inclusion in the Select List for promotion to the cadre of ATO. Two disciplinary cases were pending against him at the time of consideration of his name by the DPC. Moreover, he has been awarded a punishment of increment bar for one year temporarily as per Order No.24677/2005 dated 11/06/2007 for performing duty under intoxication on 25/08/2005. Another disciplinary case pending against him has now been disposed on 24/02/2009 imposing punishment of increment bar for six months for the proved reason that he has performed duty on 16/04/2008 under intoxication as per Order No.VLC4.1319/2008 dated 24/02/2009. Another file which was WP(C) No.2826/2010 -2- pending at the time of DPC has also been closed vide Order No.VLD4.34686/2003 dated 5-4-2009 imposing the punishment of increment bar for six months for the committed offence that he disrupted the functioning of the Station Master's Office, Thrissur on 30-9-2003 under intoxication. The DPC considered his performance and Confidential Reports for the last three years. The DPC meeting was on 22-5- 2008. The DPC considered the performance and self-appraisal of the incumbent for the last three years ie. 2005, 2006 & 2007. The punishment of increment bar for one year was awarded vide Order No.VLC4/26477/05 dated 11-6-2007 for his performance of duty on 25-8-2005 under intoxication. The punishment of increment bar for six months vide Order No.VLC4/1319/2008 dated 24/02/2009 for his performance of duty under intoxication on 16-4-2008. Both the offences and punishments are seen within the review period. The DPC which met on 22-5-2008, has not selected him for inclusion of his name in the Select List for promotion to the cadre of ATO owing to the reason that he was awarded with the punishment of increment bar for one year for the offence committed within the review period and two (2) disciplinary cases were pending at the time of the DPC for the similar offence relating to intoxication, out of which one was committed within the review period. All the disciplinary cases pending against him were finalised only on 05/04/2009. In the strict sense his name can be considered for promotion only after the date of finalizing the disciplinary cases.” 3. The learned counsel contends that the criterion for consideration by the DPC are as follows:- “a) If an Officer/employee has been punished within the WP(C) No.2826/2010 -3- review period and the punishments are of major nature should not be considered for promotion; b) If an Officer/employee committed an offence prior to the review period and has been imposed punishment during the review period shall be considered for promotion. c) Those who have been awarded punishment of increment bar for a period less than one (1) year without cumulative effect shall be considered.” According to him, in view of the aforesaid three criterion, his case ought to have been considered. In my view, the petitioner is not eligible for the benefit of any of these clauses. As already seen, during the review period, the petitioner was imposed a punishment of barring of increment for one year. If one has to take advantage of Clause (c), the punishment should be for a period of less than one year. If that be so, the case of the petitioner does not satisfy the eligibility criteria sought for by the respondent Corporation. Therefore, I cannot find fault with the action of the DPC in not considering the petitioner's case for promotion. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg