IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 15TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 38604 of 2010(A) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- V.SREEKUMARAN NAIR,ASI OF POLICE(GRADE) HCT/6135,KADINAMKULAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM(RURAL). BY ADV. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR SMT.HENA BAHULEYAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,HOME (H) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1 695 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014. 3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, (SOUTH ZONE), POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014. 4. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, (SOUTH ZONE),THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014. 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM(RURAL) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 003. R1 TO R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER ADV. SRI. SANDESH RAJA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SMT S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.38604 OF 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges Exts.P5, P8, P9, P11 and P13 orders which are orders passed in disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, in which the petitioner was imposed with a punishment of barring of increment for two years with cumulative effect. According to the petitioner, the disciplinary proceedings are vitiated for the reason that the disciplinary authority had differed with the findings of the enquiry officer without issuing any notice to show cause to the petitioner as to why the disciplinary authority should not differ with the findings of the enquiry officer. Initially, I directed the learned Government Pleader to get instructions as to whether the petitioner had been issued a show cause notice for differing with the findings of the enquiry officer. But, the learned Government Pleader points out that the punishment became final by Ext.P13 order as early as on 22.11.2005 and the petitioner has not given any valid W.P.(C)No.38604/10 2 explanation for the long delay of almost five years in challenging the same. I find considerable merit in the said objection raised by the learned Government Pleader. The petitioner has not given any satisfactory explanation for the long delay of five years in challenging the disciplinary proceedings. As such the petitioner is guilty of unexplained delay and laches. Accordingly, for that reason, the writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.38604/10 3