IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2009 / 27TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 29417 of 2009(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DANIAL DEVARAJ, DENNIS VILLA, NEW CIVIL NAGAR, PALAKKAD-678 001. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMANDANT GENERAL, HOME GUARD AND CIVIL DEFENCE, FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES, KOZHIKODE. MS.ANU SIVARAMAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.29417 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 19th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is working as a Station Officer at the Fire and Rescue Station, Varkala. While the petitioner was working at Vadakkancherry, disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner, on the allegation that in collusion with another colleague, he had given certain equipments on rent. Ext.P4 is the enquiry report, on the basis of which he was imposed a punishment of barring of 3 increments with cumulative effect. It would appear that in the appeal, the period of suspension was ordered to be treated as joining time. He filed Ext.P6 before the 1st respondent, that resulted in Ext.P8 order dated 26/03/2009, where it was ordered that the punishment imposed, i.e. barring of three increments, shall be without cumulative effect. Subsequently, in Ext.P9 select list prepared for the post of Assistant Divisional Officer, the petitioner was not included, and still later, he filed Ext.P10 representation seeking his inclusion in the list as well. In the writ petition, he WP(C) No.29417/2009 -2- challenges Ext.P8 and also seeks a direction for consideration of Ext.P10 representation. 2. In so far as Ext.P8 is concerned, having regard to the fact that the misconduct stands proved in Ext.P4 enquiry report, I cannot find fault with the respondents in having imposed a punishment of barring of three increments and that too without cumulative effect. This Court will be justified in interfering with an order of punishment imposed by a disciplinary authority, only if the punishment is disproportionate to the misconduct proved or is one shocking the conscience of this Court. Having regard to the facts, I am not inclined to think that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is one satisfying any of these conditions. If that be so, the challenge against Ext.P8 should fail. 3. However, the petitioner submits that since the period of punishment has expired, he should have been considered for inclusion in the select list. This essentially is a matter for the 2nd respondent to consider. Since the petitioner has already moved the 2nd respondent by filing Ext.P10, I direct the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P10 as expeditiously as possible, at WP(C) No.29417/2009 -3- any rate, within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment, along with a copy of this writ petition. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg