IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2010 / 21ST ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20297 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- K.K.RAJAN, INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR SQUAD NO.1, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KATTAPPANA IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.G.ANIL BABU RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE (LOWER) GOVERNMENT OF KERALA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR (COMMISSIONER,COMMERCIAL TAXES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 20297 OF 2010 (J) ===================== Dated this the 12th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an Assistant Commercial Tax Officer aspiring for promotion to the post of Commercial Tax Officer. By Ext.P3 order dated 01/02/2010, disciplinary proceedings which were pending against the petitioner was finalised by imposing a punishment of barring of one increment without cumulative effect. 2. In the DPC that was held on 23/2/2010 for finalising the select list for the post of Commercial Tax Officer, petitioner was not considered, and in the select list, his juniors were included and were promoted thereafter. He filed a representation against his supercession and that was directed to be considered by this Court in Ext.P5 judgment in WP(C) No.15486/10. Accordingly, review DPC was held, his case was considered and rejected by Ext.P6 with the following observations:- The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala vide judgment dated 20.05.2010 has directed the first respondent viz. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Convenor DPC (Lower) to consider the representation of the petitioner Sri.K.K.Rajan (Ext.P4 representation dated 29.4.2010) within eight weeks of production of a copy of the judgment along with the copy of the writ petition. WPC No. 20297/10 :2 : The Committee examined his representation dated 29.4.2010 and noticed that a disciplinary case was initiated against him which was finalised as per order No.A7.18774/09 dt 1.2.2010 by imposing a punishment of barring one increment without cumulative effect. The period of punishment is not over. Therefore, the Committee decided to supercede him as this criteria is adopted in all similar cases. It is challenging Ext.P6, the writ petition is filed. 3. The case of the petitioner is that in view of the provisions contained in Note (i) and (ii) of Rule 28(b)(i)(7)of Part II KS & SSR, the Committee ought to have considered his case on its own merits, and that, being only a minor penalty that was imposed, he ought to have been included in the select list. However, a reading of Notes (i) and (ii) relied on by the counsel for the petitioner itself demonstrates that provisional inclusion in the select list of an officer against whom minor penalty proceedings are pending is contemplated only in a case where at the time when the DPC is held, such proceedings are pending. In the case of the petitioner, such proceedings concluded by Ext.P3 order long before the DPC was held on 23/2/2010. Therefore, the aforesaid notes relied on are inapplicable in his case. 4. Further, Note (v) of the Rule shows that only WPC No. 20297/10 :3 : punishment of censure is excluded when officers are considered for inclusion in the select list. In this case, petitioner admittedly suffered a punishment of barring of increment without cumulative effect vide Ext.P3 order, and therefore, the authorities cannot be faulted for excluding the case of the petitioner so long as the punishment period is not over. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp