IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2009 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 31954 of 2008(D) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- K. MURALEEDHARAN, DETECTIVE INSPECTOR, CRIME BRANCH C.I.D., KANNUR BY ADV. MR.M.V.BOSE MR.VINOD MADHAVAN SMT.NISHA BOSE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENTS, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KANNUR RANGE, KANNUR. 4. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, NORTH ZONE, NADAKKAVU P.O., KOZHIKODE- 673 011. R1 TO R4 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.P. NANDAKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 31954/2008-D APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31/01/2003 OF THE I.G. OF POLICE, NORTH ZONE, KOZHIKODE. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21/03/2003 OF THE I.G. OF POLICE, NORTH ZONE, KOZHIKODE. EXT.P3: CO LETTER DATED 06/06/2003 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN VC.9/2003/TSR OF VIGILANCE AND ANTICORRUPTION BUREAU, THRISSUR, DATED 19/06/2007. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25/06/2007 PASSED IN THE COURT OF ENQUIRY COMMISIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)NO.1837/2007/HOME DATED 10/07/2007. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 10/03/2008 ISSUED BY I.G. OF POLICE, KANNUR. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE SUBMISSION DATED 31/03/2008 FROM THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05/05/2008 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION DATED 20/06/2008 BEFORE THE PL. SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF KERALA, FROM THE PETITIONER. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE FORWARDING LETTER DATED 30/06/2008 FROM S.P. OF POLICE KANNUR TO I.G. OF POLICE KANNUR. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 18/09/2008 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HOME MINISTER OF KERALA FROM THE PETITIONER. EXT.P13: COPY OF THE FORWARDING LETTER FROM PRIVATE SECRETARY TO KERALA GOVT. TO 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 18/09/2008. EXT.P14: COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 17/10/2008 FROM ADDL. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, NORTH ZONE, KOZHIKODE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P15: COPY OF THE EXPLANATION FROM THE PETITIONER. EXT.P16: NIL EXT.P17: COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE (HIGHER) HELD ON 07/05/2008 FOR THE REPRESENTATION OF THE SELECT LIST OF CIS FIT FOR PROMOTION AS DY.S.P.s FOR THE YEAR 2007. EXT.P18: COPY OF THE G.O.(RT).1457/09/HOME DATED 22/05/2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.31954 OF 2008 (D) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a Circle Inspector of Police. 2. On certain allegations of misconduct, by Ext.P1 order he was placed under suspension. Thereafter, by Ext.P2, an oral enquiry was ordered. However since a Vigilance Case in relation to the same incident, in which the petitioner was first accused was pending, by Ext.P3 order it was directed that the enquiry proceedings will be kept in abeyance. The Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau completed the enquiry and finally submitted Ext.P4 report recommending departmental action against the petitioner. This report was accepted by the Vigilance Court and by Ext.P5 order, further action against the accused were dropped. 3. Accordingly, Ext.P6 order was issued, to revive the oral enquiry already ordered against the petitioner and others. Enquiry was accordingly held and finally report was submitted. Thereafter, Ext.P7 show cause notice was issued by the 3rd respondent, the disciplinary authority, proposing to bar increments for 2 years. WPC.No.31954/08 :2 : Petitioner submitted Ext.P8 reply. Considering the entire matter, the 3rd respondent issued Ext.P9, confirming the proposal in Ext.P7. It is mentioned in Ext.P9 that an appeal against the order of punishment will lie before the 4th respondent. However, the petitioner submitted Ext.P10 before the first respondent. Ext.P10 was forwarded by the Superintendent of Police to the 3rd respondent by Ext.P11. Petitioner submits that Ext.P10 has since been forwarded and is pending before the first respondent. 4. While the matter stood thus, the 4th respondent issued Ext.P14 show cause notice stating that on examining the matter he was of the opinion that the punishment imposed on the petitioner was not commensurate with the delinquency committed by him and that considering the seriousness and gravity of the misconduct, stringent punishment is called for. On this basis petitioner was called upon to show cause why his provisional decision to impose punishment of compulsory retirement shall not be confirmed. Ext.P14 is dated 17.10.2008 and on its receipt petitioner submitted Ext.P15 reply. It is thereafter that this writ petition is filed, challenging Exts.P9 and P14 and for a direction to promote the WPC.No.31954/08 :3 : petitioner ignoring the departmental proceedings pending against him. 5. In so far as the challenge against Ext.P9 is concerned, by this order, punishment was imposed on the petitioner. Aggrieved by that punishment although the petitioner could have filed an appeal as provided under Rule 23 of the Kerala Police Departmental Inquiries Punishment and Appeal Rules he has filed Ext.P10 before the first respondent invoking its power under Rule 36-A of the said rules. Even according to the petitioner, the said review petition is pending consideration of the Government and therefore at this stage, it is for the petitioner to urge his contentions before the Government. True the counsel for the petitioner made reference to order dated 11.1.2008 issued by the Government exonerating Sri. Kunjumon, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police who was also proceeded in the joint enquiry that was conducted. This order also says that even the complainant had deposed in the oral enquiry that the entire allegation was fabricated by him as he has some grudge against the police constable involved. These orders, might suggest that the proceedings were unwarranted. However at WPC.No.31954/08 :4 : this stage, it is not necessary for this court to pronounce on the correctness of the contentions now raised before this court as it is for the petitioner to make use of this order before the Government. 6. Having regard to the pendency of Ext.P10 filed by the petitioner under Rule 36-A of the Rules referred to above, the first respondent is directed to dispose of Ext.P10 with notice to the petitioner and as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 2 months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. 7. The other contention of the petitioner is against Ext.P14, the show cause notice issued by the 4th respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that 4th respondent is not an authority competent under the Rules referred to above. Therefore, according to him, Ext.P14 is without jurisdiction. 8. As already noticed, although Ext.P14 has been issued and the petitioner has filed his reply, the 4th respondent has not proceeded any further with this matter. If the petitioner has a case that the 4th respondent has no jurisdiction in the matter, it is for the petitioner to take this contention before the 3rd respondent himsefl. In my view at this stage, this contention of the petitioner is WPC.No.31954/08 :5 : premature. 9. Be that as it may, having regard to the fact that Ext.P10 is pending before the first respondent, it is premature for the 4th respondent to proceed with Ext.P14. Therefore, it is directed that further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P14 will be kept in abeyance by the 4th respondent until the first respondent disposes of Ext.P10, as directed above with notice to the petitioner. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No.31954/08 :6 :