IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 32164 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V. MUHAMMED BASHEER, SHAHANAZ, NEAR SMD PUBLIC SCHOOL, PEROOR TKM COLLEGE P.O., KOLLAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.R.KIRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, TO TAX & REGISTRATION DEPT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.32164 OF 2009 (M) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner retired from service as Deputy Inspector General of Registration (South Zone) on 30.4.2006. 2. During 2002, while he was working as Sub Registrar at Vamanapuram, following the loss of metal seal of the office, petitioner was placed under suspension from 10.4.2002 to 19.6.2002. Disciplinary action was initiated and that culminated in an order of punishment of barring one increment without cumulative effect. Subsequently, by Ext.P3, the period of suspension was converted into commuted leave. Petitioner continued to make representation against the punishment and sought exoneration completely. That was rejected by Ext.P5 order passed by the first respondent. He pursued the matter before the Government which was also rejected by Ext.P6 order dated 16.1.2008. In this writ petition the petitioner contends that the punishment is disproportionate to the misconduct alleged. He also seeks parity in treatment given as per Ext.P7 order. WPC.No.32164/09 :2 : 3. In so far as Ext.P7 order is concerned, that was also a case where a Sub Registrar was proceeded against for loss of metal seal. Finally she was let off with a warning. However, a reading of Ext.P7 order shows that no negligence was found against the Sub Registrar mentioned therein, unlike in the case of the petitioner, where negligence has been found even in Ext.P6 order. Therefore, such finding makes difference between the case of the petitioner and that of the person mentioned in Ext.P7. 4. Evidently, misconduct has been proved against the petitioner and the disciplinary authority has imposed a punishment of barring of one increment, and that too without cumulative effect. Such a punishment cannot be said to be too disproportionate or shocking the conscience of this court, warranting interference of this court. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No.32164/09 :3 :