IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY THURSDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2011 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1932 WA.No. 1859 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.17366/2006 Dated 27/07/2010 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER:- ------------------------------------- A.SASEENDRAN, S/O. LATE GOPALAN, AGED 45 YEARS, AREEKKARA HOUSE, CHEEKKOONNU WEST, KAKKATTIL, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. (HEAD WARDER, SUB JAIL, PONNANI). BY ADV. SRI.K.D.BABU SRI.K.N.PADMAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS:- --------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (PRISONS), JAIL HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.T.B.REMANI. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kvs/- C.N.Ramachandran Nair & Bhabani Prasad Ray, JJ. ==================================== W.A.No.1859 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2011. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Writ appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge confirming the punishment imposed on the appellant for dereliction of duty which led to escapement of one prisoner. We have heard counsel for the appellant and have gone through the judgment of the learned single Judge. Appellant's counsel contended that enquiry is vitiated and according to him the escapement of a prisoner is after the appellant was relieved from duty. However, on going through the findings of the learned single Judge, what we notice is that on completion of duty by the appellant on 19.12.1999 he was directed to continue duty to take care of the prisoners and was given charge of the kitchen for the reason that his substitute had not come. Appellant obviously ignored the oral orders given by the superior officer and in enquiry even challenged the validity of the oral order requesting him to take care of the prisoners on 20.12.1999 for want of substitute. WA1859/11 -:2:- We do not think in a sensitive employment like this appellant can obey the orders. In view of the concurrent findings in the enquiry by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority, learned single Judge did not interfere with the punishment. Considering the gravity of the offence, the punishment of barring two increments with cumulative effect also was not found to be excessive or arbitrary. We do not find any ground to deviate from the view taken by the learned single Judge. Consequently, writ appeal is dismissed. C.N.Ramachandran Nair, Judge. Bhabani Prasad Ray, Judge. sl.