IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2010 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 12678 of 2010(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DR. K.S.MOHANAN, S/O. SREEDHARAN, AGED 50 YEARS, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR (CARDIOLOGY) MEDICAL COLLEGE, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SUDHEENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, MEDICAL COLLEGE CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.T. MUHAMOOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 12678 of 2010 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 9th day of April, 2010. J U D G M E N T Pursuant to disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, the Government, by Ext. P1 order, imposed on the petitioner a punishment of barring of 2 increments with cumulative effect. The petitioner now seeks disposal of Ext. P2 review petition filed by the petitioner. 2. Ext. P1 is dated 18-1-2007. Therein, there is an endorsement in February, 2007 to the effect that copy of the same has been communicated to the petitioner. Ext. P2 review petition is dated 18- 1-2010. The petitioner's explanation is that the petitioner got copy of Ext. P1 only in December, 2009 when the petitioner went to the office of the 2nd respondent to enquire about his promotion and non- payment of increments. I am unable to accept that explanation because, pursuant to Ext. P1, admittedly, the increments of the petitioner were withheld. Therefore, the petitioner must have known about the same at least at the time of withholding of increments, which should have alerted him regarding the punishment. As such, I am not satisfied with the explanation given for the long delay of more then 3 years in filing Ext. P2. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE.