IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2010 / 21ST JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15124 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.P.JOB, HEAD CONSTABLE (ASI GRADE), CITY POLICE CONTROL ROOM, THEVARA, (S/O.A.R.PETER, AGED 54, KALARIKKAL HOUSE, PANANGAD, ERNAKULAM). BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI SRI.THUSHAR NIRMAL SARATHY SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR SMT.K.M.RAMYA SRI.P.K.RAKESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA TO BE REP. BY SECRETARY, HOME (H) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.ARAVIND KUMAR BABU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.15124 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is now a Head Constable (ASI Grade). While working as a police constable at Central Police Station, Ernakulam, with effect from 17.9.2004, he was placed under suspension, on the allegation that prior to his night petrol duty, at about 1.30 p.m., he was found quarrelling with the employees of a Bar in a public road, after consuming intoxicating drinks. Ext.P1 memo of charges was served on the petitioner. Enquiry was held and Ext.P2 report was submitted, in which the Enquiry Officer found that though it was not at duty time, the petitioner was under the influence of alcohol, and that this has lead to a quarrel as alleged against him. Although by Ext.P3, he was acquitted from the criminal case that was registered against him, second respondent, being the disciplinary authority, issued Ext.P4 order imposing punishment of barring of two increments. By Ext.P5, appeal to the Inspector General of Police was rejected. Revision filed before the first respondent was also W.P.(C) No.15124 of 2010 2 rejected by Ext.P6. It is challenging these proceedings, the writ petition is filed. 2. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is by relying on Rule 93(B) of Government Servant's Conduct Rules, 1960. According to the counsel, even accepting the findings in the enquiry report to be true, none of the elements of Rule 93(B) are made out, However, I am not entertaining the said plea of the petitioner, primarily for the reason that even in Ext.P7, the memorandum of appeal filed by the petitioner, such a contention is not seen raised. A reading of Ext.P2 report submitted by the enquiry officer showed that the petitioner had involved in the quarrel and that he was in an intoxicated condition. It was based on this finding of the enquiry officer that the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment. This finding of the enquiry officer was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was upheld by the appellate authority and the revisional authority concurrently. With the materials available, this finding of fact does not call for any interference. W.P.(C) No.15124 of 2010 3 In such circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE. nj.