IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 5988 of 2011(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- A. MOHANAN, P.C 4805, POLICE CONSTABLE, POLICE STATION, PANOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.SAJU JOHN SRI.SERGI JOSEPH THOMAS RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTRES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANNUR, DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, KANNUR - 670 001. 4. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KANUR RANGE, KANNUR - 670001. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.SANDESH RAJA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 5988 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T While working as a Police Constable in Kelakam Police Station, the petitioner was suspended from service pending disciplinary action, on allegation that on 02.08.2003, he misbehaved with the Sub Inspector of police and attempted to assault him. An enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was found guilty. On the basis of the enquiry report, the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of dismissal from service, by order dated 06.01.2004. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kannur, which was rejected by order dated 16.08.2004. According to the petitioner, the punishment caused mental imbalance to the petitioner and, therefore, his wife filed a petition before the Government challenging the punishment imposed on the petitioner. The Government was kind enough to treat it as a review petition and set aside the punishment on the ground that the punishment is disproportionate to the gravity of the charges levelled against the petitioner. Accordingly, Government by order dated 28.6.06 reduced the punishment to barring of increment for three years with cumulative effect and reinstated the petitioner with immediate effect. 2. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner reported for duty on 11.09.06. W.P.(C)No. 5988 of 2011 -2- Thereafter, the petitioner requested the respondents to regularize his service for the period he was out of service viz; from 9.08.03 to 10.09.06. The Government, thereafter regularized the said period as duty for the limited purpose of pension under Rule 56 (5) Part 1 of KSR and limiting pay and allowances to subsistence allowance to a maximum period of three years immediately preceding reinstatement. The remaining period from 28.6.06 to 10.9.06 was regularized by granting joining time and admissible leave. The date 9.08.03 mentioned therein was later corrected as 04.08.03 by order dated 11.05.2010. Petitioner is now challenging Exts.P10, P11 and P12 orders. 3. I am of opinion that the petitioner has been guilty of delay and laches at every stage of the proceedings. Even after getting Ext.P12, which is dated 11.05.2010, petitioner did not take any steps to challenge the same for almost nine months. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition in exercise of my discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE KRK