IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2009 / 11TH ASHADHA 1931 WA.No. 532 of 2007 -------------------------------- (AGAINST JUDT. DT. 11.10.2006 IN WPC No.26729/2006) APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ---------------------------------- P.RUGMANI, W/O.P.MADHAVAN NAIR, (SI OF POLICE,WOMEN CELL,PALAKKAD), A33, POLICE OFFICERS QUARTERS,KUNNATHURUMEU, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKITESH RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, TRIVANDRUM, KERALA. 2. DY.INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THRISSUR RANGE,THRISSUR. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,PALAKKAD. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BENNY GERVASIS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/06/2009, THE COURT ON 02/07/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A. No.532 of 2007 ------------------------------ Dated this, the 2nd day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant is the writ petitioner. She was a woman head constable working under the respondents. While so, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against her on the ground that, she allowed some persons taken into custody to escape from police custody. The disciplinary authority (third respondent) found her guilty and a penalty of barring one increment without cumulative effect was imposed by Ext.P1 order dated 9.11.2001. The appellate authority (second respondent) affirmed the finding of guilt, but modified the penalty of barring one increment to one of entering a black mark in her service records by Ext.P3 order dated 23.10.2002. The period of suspension was treated as duty for the limited purpose of pension and gratuity and the pay and allowance was limited to 80% of the eligible amount by the third respondent by order dated 18.5.2002. Against that decision, the appellant filed a review petition before the third respondent, based on W.A. No.532 / 2007 :-2-: Ext.P3 order. That review petition was dismissed by Ext.P4 order. Then, the appellant filed Ext.P5 representation before the first respondent challenging Ext.P4 order of the third respondent. Since no action was taken on the said representation, writ petition (C) No.18238/06 was filed which was disposed of by a learned Single Judge directing the first respondent to consider her representation. Pursuant to the said direction, Ext.P7 order was passed by the first respondent, rejecting the request of the appellant/petitioner to treat the period of suspension as duty for all purposes. Challenging Exts.P1, P3, P4 and P7 orders, the present Writ Petition was filed. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the impugned orders were valid and restricting the remuneration for the suspension period to 80% was held to be justified. Aggrieved petitioner has filed this appeal. 2. We notice that, though the appellant was found guilty, a lenient view was taken and the punishment of barring one increment without cumulative effect was reduced to entering a black mark in the service records. Since she was not W.A. No.532 / 2007 :-3-: fully exonerated, the order of the disciplinary authority that she was entitled to get only 80% of the emoluments during the period of suspension, cannot be said to be illegal. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though the appellate authority has modified the punishment, the increment which was barred has not been so far released to her. If that grievance is even now subsisting, the appellant may approach the third respondent with a representation along with a copy of the judgment. In that event, the third respondent shall look into the said grievance, and pass appropriate orders within two months from the date of receipt of that representation. Sd/- K. Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. Sd/- C.T. Ravikumar, Judge. DK.