IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2009 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 29851 of 2009(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.P.RAJEEV, SECTION OFFICER, DOCK LABOUR DIVISION, COCHIN PORT TRUST, KOCHI-682 009. BY ADV. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR SMT.V.SHYLAJA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. COCHIN ORT TRUST, KOCHI-682 009, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. TRAFFIC MANAGER, COCHIN PORT TRUST KOCHI. 3. THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN, COCHIN PORT TRUST, KOCHI. SHRI E.K.NANDAKUMAR, SC, CPT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.29851/2009-B ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 27th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is working as Section Officer in Dock Labour Division of the Cochin Port Trust. He is aggrieved by the penalty imposed as per Ext.P3 on culmination of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. It is pointed out that the same is shockingly disproportionate and, even though the Presenting Officer in Ext.P5 indicated that as regards the charge that he had misbehaved to Mrs.K.P.Thahira practically there is no evidence, the disciplinary authority has imposed a punishment which is grossly disproportionate. 2. The petitioner has already filed Ext.P4 appeal before the second respondent. It is averred in the writ petition that the appeal is still pending. It is submitted that the penalty if implemented, will result in acute hardship to the petitioner. Therefore, an early disposal of the appeal is warranted. 3. In view of the above position, there will be a direction to the second respondent to take a decision on Ext.P4 after hearing the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms