IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 27TH BHADRA 1931 OP.No. 9736 of 1999(H) ------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- R.K.SOMASEKHARAN NAIR, THIRUVATHIRA, KANCHIYOORKONAM, KATTAKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.ACHUTHA KURUP, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO HOME(H) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADERSMT. N.SUDHA DEVI, SC THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 9736 of 1999(H) APPENDIX PETITIONER'SEXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF MEMO OF CHARGE DATED 29.4.1997. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 20.1.1998. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE DATED 2.1.1998. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED NIL. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 20.10.1998. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE rhs S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... O.P. No. 9736 of 1999 ................................................. Dated this the 18th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner retired from service on 30.4.1997, while working as Sub Inspector of Police, Control Room, Thiruvananthapuram. On 28.4.1997, the petitioner was served with Ext.P1 memo of charges in respect of certain allegations of misconducts. An enquiry was conducted and Ext.P2 Punishment Roll was prepared, in which the petitioner was found guilty of the misconducts alleged against him. Pursuant thereto, Ext.P3 show cause notice was issued to the petitioner directing him to show cause why the punishment of withholding of pension at the rate of Rs.50/- per month should not be imposed on him. The petitioner filed Ext.P4 reply. However, by Ext.P5 order, the punishment of reduction in pension at the rate of Rs.50 per month was imposed on the petitioner. Petitioner is challenging that order. 2. The petitioner does not challenge the validity of the enquiry as such. The petitioner's contention is that finding of O.P. No. 9736 of 1999 -2- guilt is against the evidence in the case. According to the petitioner, the charges have not been proved by reliable evidence. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed wherein the 1st respondent supports the impugned orders. 4. I have considered the rival contention in detail. 5. The charges as contained in Ext.P1, are as follows: “1. That you Shri. R.K. Somasekharan Nair, SI of Police while the charge of Balaramapuram P.S. from 18.6.89 to 18.7.91 had committed grave dereliction of duty and official misconduct by not writing court CD's in Crime 126/88 of Balaramapuram PS an eleven posting dates, not conduct investigation of crime 216/90 after 16.5.1991 and missing the case diary file. II. You are required to show cause why disciplinary action as contemplated under KPDIP & A Rules 1958 should not be taken against you. You are allowed 15 days time from the date of receipts of this communication, to submit your written statement of defence. If your written statement is not received within the stipulated time, the matter will be proceeded with on the presumption that you have no explanation to offer. You are also required to state whether you desire to be heard in person. You may peruse the relevant records mentioned in the statement of allegations and take down extracts from them. If so desired in the presence of me of any day prior to the date of submission of your written statement of defence on any day which will be fixed in advance at your request.” 6. It is not disputed that the case diary was missing. Petitioner explained that the case diary was forwarded to the O.P. No. 9736 of 1999 -3- Public Prosecutor. But the petitioner could not produce any evidence to show that he had forwarded the same to the Public Prosecutor. In fact he did not cross examine many of the witnesses who were examined in the enquiry. In the enquiry, the petitioner could not effectively controvert the evidence adduced for proving the misconducts in respect of crime No.216 of 1990. A reading of Ext.P2 Punishment Roll shows that the finding was based on evidence in the enquiry. The law on the subject is that unless the findings are perverse this court cannot sit in appeal over such findings. On a reading of Ext.P2 Punishment Roll, I do not find that the findings are in any way perverse. For all the above reasons, I do not find any merit in the original petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs