IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2011 / 16TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 18320 of 2011(L) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M.K.RAJAN, S/O.M.V.KUTTAN,AGED 51 YEARS, MADATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE,POTTA.P.O,POTTACHIRA DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN-680 722. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF HOME,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695 001. 2. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE(RURAL), THRISSUR RANGE,THRISSUR, PIN-680 001. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL), NOW RE-DESIGNATED AS DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF(RURAL), THRISSUR, PIN-680 001. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. SMITHA SUKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.18320/2011-: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 26/02/2008 IN CRL.R.P. NO. 233/2000 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 03/04/2000 SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (IN CHARGE), THRISSUR ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 03/11/2010 ISSUED BY THE R.3. TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION DTD. 15/03/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.2. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 25/05/2011 ISSUED BY THE DY.S.P. (ADMINISTRATION), STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, THRISSUR, ISSUED TO JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT, P.R. & PENSION BRANCH, DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE (RURAL). RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.18320 of 2011 ---------------------------- Dated 7th July, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is presently working as Head Constable, the post which is now re-designated as Senior Civil Police Officer. While working as Police Constable he was prosecuted along with two others for offences punishable under sections 223, 225A(a), 225B, 465 and 177 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner who was the second accused in the said crime was convicted by the trial Court. In the appeal the conviction and sentence were affirmed. However, as per Ext.P1 order in Crl.R.P.No.233 of 2000 this Court interfered with the order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner and he was set at liberty. In fact, disciplinary proceedings was also simultaneously initiated against the petitioner. The said disciplinary proceedings initiated against him culminated in Ext.P3 order whereby a punishment of barring of two increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner. Thereupon, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P4 statutory appeal dated 15.3.2011 before the second respondent. The petitioner is aggrieved by the delay in the matter of disposal of the said appeal. The contention of the petitioner is that as per Ext.P5, he was informed that Ext.P4 appeal will WP(C).No.18320/2011 2 be taken up for consideration only after regularisation of the period between the date of suspension and the date of reinstatement. I am of the view that such a stand taken by the appellate authority cannot be countenanced. It is the bounden duty of any authority, while ordering reinstatement of an incumbent after the culmination of a disciplinary proceedings, to issue appropriate orders regularizing the period between the date of suspension and the date of reinstatement. On account of the lapse on the part of the respondents in issuing such an order they cannot take advantage of the same and defer a decision on Ext.P4 appeal. I am of the view that there is absolutely no justification for not taking up Ext.P4 appeal and passing orders thereon, in accordance with law. In the above circumstances, Ext.P5 is set aside. This writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 appeal expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say that the authority competent to consider the question of regularisation of the period between the date of suspension and the date of reinstatement shall consider the question of regularization of the said period, in accordance with law. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS