IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2008 / 30TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 29849 of 2004(C) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ K.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O.KUNJIKANARAN, AISWARYA (H), KIZHOOR POST, MELADY (VIA), CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL, CANNORE RANGE, CANNORE. 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, (RURAL), OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PUTUPPANAM, VADAKARA. 6. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THAMARASSERY, CALICUT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.G.LAKSHMINARAYAN – R1 TO R6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).29849/2004-C APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 26/04/89. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 15/06/89 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE DETAILED REPRESENTATION DATED 19/06/89 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE PUNISHMENT ROLL DATED 06/07/89. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 27/03/90. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT ON 17/04/91. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 13/09/91. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE ORDER OF REVIEW PETITION DATED 04/12/93. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 28/10/96. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL // TRUE COPY // Rs/ T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.29849 of 2004-C - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2008. JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P5, P6 and P8 orders of punishment in a disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner was subjected to disciplinary action while he was working at Koyilandy police station from 12.11.1984 to 11/7/1987. Ext.P1 is the memo of charges. He filed a detailed representation disputing the correctness of the charges by Ext.P3. After a due enquiry, Ext.P4 report was submitted by the enquiry officer whereunder he was found guilty of the charges. 2. Thereafter, further action was proceeded against him and by Ext.P5, the District Police Superintendent imposed the punishment of barring one increment with cumulative effect. Thereafter, he filed an appeal which was rejected by Ext.P6, confirming the punishment. The petitioner challenged the same by filing a revision petition as per Ext.P7 before the Government. By Ext.P8 order, the revision petition also stands dismissed. 3. The petitioner has raised various grounds in the writ petition. According to him, the charges were without any substance and the finding of the enquiry officer as well as the order of punishment are without any WPC 29849/2004 -2- legal basis. It is contended that the consequential orders also suffer from infirmities. 4. This court cannot sit in appeal over the veracity of the charges and the findings of the enquiry officer. This is a case where the enquiry was conducted properly and no vitiating circumstances have been pointed out also. In Ext.P4 the enquiry officer has considered the charges in detail and has analysed the evidence also and ultimately has found him guilty of the charges. The view taken by the original authority was confirmed by the appellate authority as per Ext.P6. It was found that the charges have been proved beyond any doubt and the punishment does not call for any interference. The revision petition, Ext.P7 was considered in detail by the Government. The Government was also of the view that there are ample evidence on record to establish and prove the charges against the petitioner. The Government also found that there are no violations of the rules in regard to the conduct of enquiry or in imposing the punishment. It was found that ample evidence has been gathered to establish the charges against the petitioner. Ultimately, it appears that the petitioner was only trying to put the blame on somebody else and this is a view taken by the Government also. 5. This court will not be justified in upsetting the findings of fact in WPC 29849/2004 -3- exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is not argued or pointed out that the punishment awarded is disproportionate also. Learned Govt. Pleader pointed out that there is inordinate delay in filing the writ petition, as Ext.P8 order is dated 4.12.1993 and the writ petition has been filed on 8.10.2004. Therefore, on that ground also, the writ petition fails. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the imposition of penalty, i.e. barring of increment for a period of one year cumulatively has resulted in undue hardship to the petitioner. It is also pointed out that the same will affect the retirement benefits payable to the petitoiner which is being received by him. 7. The punishment that is imposed against the petitioner is under Rule 15 of the Kerala Police Departmental Inquiries, Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1958. Withholding of increments or promotion including stoppage at an efficiency bar is specifically provided under Rule 15(g) of the Act. The explanation shows that in case of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect the monetary value equivalent to three times the amount of increments ordered to be withheld may be recovered. Going by the above, the punishment granted is one prescribed under the rules and hence there is no illegality in imposing the said punishment. There is no violation WPC 29849/2004 -4- of the rule as such. Apart from that, when the statutory authorities having confirmed the punishment, and since it is not shown that it is so disproportionate, this court will not be justified in interfering with the same. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/