IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2008 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 37217 of 2008(E) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M.L. VARGHESE, HAV 696, KAP IST BATTALION, R.V. PURAM, TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRCETOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE COMMANDANT, KAP I BATTALION, TRICHUR. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMANDANT, KAP I BATTALION, TRICHUR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. Basheer, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P (C)No. 37217 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of December 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is stated to be working as Havildar in KAP I Battalion, Thrissur. According to him, he entered service as Police Constable in December 1993. His grievance is that the respondents are refusing to consider the appeals filed by him against certain punishments imposed on him pursuant to disciplinary proceedings. 2. It is the admitted position that several disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on several grounds. It is also not in dispute that petitioner was imposed with penalties in those proceedings. All these instances of imposition of punishment admittedly took place way back in late 1980's and early 1990's. According to the petitioner, he had filed appeal against the orders of punishment. The appeal was dismissed. He had filed a review petition on January 22, 2004. The said review petition was rejected by the Government as revealed from Ext.P5 communication dated January 16, 2007. Thereafter it appears that the petitioner had submitted separate appeals against the impugned orders. These appeals were rejected by Ext.P6 communication dated July 1, 2008. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent in rejecting the appeals primarily on the ground of delay is clearly illegal and against the principles of natural justice. I am unable to agree. A stale cause of action cannot be revived nor can it be entertained at this distance of time. Moreover, the matter had been given a quietus earlier, as is revealed from Ext.P6. In any view of the WP(C).37217/2008. 2 matter, I do not find any arbitrariness or illegality in the view taken by the authority concerned. Writ Petition is devoid of any merit. It is accordingly dismissed. A.K. Basheer Judge. an.