IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2009 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 34538 of 2009(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): (HEAD CONSTABLE POLICE CONTROL ROOM, TVPM) --------------------------------------------------------- S.V.MOHANASUNDARARAJ, VASANTHA VILASAM, MULLASSERY LANE, NANTHAN CODE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SARIN SRI.SEBASTIAN JOSEPH (KURISUMMOOTTIL) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, TRIVANDRUM RANGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CITY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, POLICE CONTROL ROOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEMOM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.34538 OF 2009 (J) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P5,P6 and P7. 2. On 17.2.1997, while the petitioner was working as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police of the Control Room, Thiruvananthpauram, he was placed under suspension on the allegation that on 12.2.1997, while he was discharging the duty of Commander in Squad No.8, as the vehicle was not in a running condition, he was directed to remain in person in the control room from 9 p.m. on that day. It is stated that he went away from the control room without informing the duty officer and that on 7 a.m on 13.12.1997, petitioner was found behavied in a disorderly manner at the KSRTC bus stand, Thampanoor, after consuming liquor. He was removed to the Hospital and on medical examination consumption of alcohol was revealed. 3. Charge sheet was issued, enquiry was conducted and report finding the guilty was submitted, based on which, Ext.P3 show cause notice was issued calling upon the petitioner to show cause why he shall not be imposed a punishment of reversion. He WPC.No.34538 /09 :2 : submitted Ext.P5 reply. The reply was considered and the 3rd respondent considered Ext.P5 order imposing punishment of reversion as Head Constable for a period of 3 years. He filed appeal under Rule 23 of the Kerala Police Department Enquiries Punishment & Appeal Rules and was dismissed by Ext.P6. Review filed under Rule 36 was also dismissed by Ext.P7. Thereafter, a representation for reconsideration was filed and no orders have been passed. In the meantime petitioner also retired from service on 28.2.2002. It is in these circumstances writ petition is filed, with the aforesaid prayers. 4. Admittedly the petitioner was subjected to medical examination and on medical examination he was found to have consumed alcohol and was under the influence of alcohol. In the enquiry conducted, the misconduct alleged was proved and it is based on the misconduct which was proved in a properly conducted enquiry that the punishment of reversion for 3 years was imposed on the petitioner. 5. A reading of Ext.P2 report shows that the Enquiry Officer has considered the entire matter and it is based on the evidence that is available that the guilt of the petitioner was found and WPC.No.34538 /09 :3 : nothing is made out to hold the findings to be vitiated. In such circumstances this court will not be justified in re appreciating the findings of fact fact arrived at by the Enquiry Officer. 6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a diabetic patient and it was because of the side effects of the medicine consumed by him that he was found to have misbehaved. However, no proof in support of this contention has been produced before either before the Enquiry Officer or before this court. In such circumstances, I cannot accept the contention now raised. Having regard to the gravity of misconduct and also the fact that the petitioner is an officer belonging to the disciplined forces, I cannot say that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate to the misconduct that was proved against him. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No.34538 /09 :4 :