IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2009 / 11TH ASHADHA 1931 W.A.No. 1298 of 2009 ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.5803/2005 Dated 06/02/2009 .................... APPELLANT// PETITIONER: ---------------------- A.ABDUL KHADER, S/O A.AHMED ALI, H.C.T 6971, POLICE CONTROL ROOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BENNY GERVASIS. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------------ W.A. No.1298 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated, this the 2nd day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant is the writ petitioner. He approached this Court challenging Exts.P4, P6 and P8 orders. Ext.P4 is the order of the disciplinary authority dated 28.8.1999 imposing a penalty of barring of three increments with cumulative effect. Ext.P6 is the order of the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal filed against Ext.P4. Ext.P8 is the order passed in revision by the Government. In the writ petition, he did not challenge the finding of guilt against him, but only canvassed one point that he should have been given an opportunity to represent against the proposed penalty. According to him, the barring of three increments with cumulative effect is a major penalty and therefore, the respondents were bound to give him an opportunity to represent against the proposed punishment. But, we notice that, as per Rule 15 of the Kerala W.A.No.1298/09 - 2 - Police Departmental Inquiries, Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1958, withholding of increments is a minor penalty, for which summary procedure provided under Rule 12 thereof alone is sufficient. Rule 17 would show that barring of increments is not a penalty covered by that Rule wherein there is a provision for giving opportunity to show cause against the proposed penalty. In view of the legal position obtained under the Rules, the ground raised by the appellant is untenable. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. Sd/- C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. DK. (True copy)