IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2010 / 28TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 22474 of 2010(H) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SHANAVAS.S., S/O. SHAHUL HAMEED, AGED 54 YEARS, ARMED RESERVE SUB INSPECTOR, ARMED RESERVE CAMP, VRINDAVANAM, THIRUVANANATHPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.C.A.CHACKO, SMT.C.M. CHARISMA, SRI. N.A. SHAFEEK, SRI. M.S. UNNIKRISHNAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANATHPURAM. 2. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RANGE. 3. CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY. 4. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, CITY TRAFFIC SOUTH DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKATH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 22474 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is working as an Armed Reserve Sub Inspector (ARSI). While working at Armed Reserve Camp at Thiruvananthapuram City, he was issued with Ext.P1 memo of charges. The allegation was that on 19.3.2007, when along with other police constables, the petitioner was deputed for money escort duty from Thiruvananthapuram to Kannur, without permission of the superiors, the petitioner permitted an under trial and the escorting policemen to travel in the vehicle till Ernakulam. An enquiry was held and Ext.P2 report shows that he was found guilty. Thereupon Ext.P3 show cause notice was issued calling upon the petitioner to show cause why he should not be punished by barring two increments with cumulative effect. He submitted Ext.P4 explanation. Ext.P5 is the order passed by the third respondent, disciplinary authority, confirming the punishment proposed in Ext.P3. Thereupon, the petitioner filed Ext.P6 appeal to the second respondent and it was rejected by Ext.P7 order. Ext.P8 review petition filed before the first respondent was also rejected by Ext.P9 order. These orders are under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the enquiry was held in violation of natural justice and the punishment is illegal and arbitrary. WPC No.22474/2010 2 3. However a perusal of Ext.P2, the enquiry report, shows that the enquiry was conducted with opportunity to the petitioner and in compliance with the principles of natural justice. The report also shows that the findings of the enquiry officer is consistent with the evidence available in the enquiry. In so far as the proportionality of the punishment is concerned, both the appellate authority and the review authority have rejected the contentions of the petitioner. Further, while appreciating the contentions of the petitioner on this aspect, one has to be conscious of the duty that the petitioner has to discharge and the gravity of the misconduct that has been committed by him. Admittedly, the petitioner is a Sub Inspector of Police who was on money escort duty. It was while so that the petitioner unauthorisedly permitted an under trial to travel in the vehicle. This is certainly a grave official misconduct, which was proved in an enquiry and validly held against him. Having regard to the gravity of the misconduct so proved in the enquiry, I am not persuaded to think that the punishment of barring of two increments with cumulative effect imposed on the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate warranting interference in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC (JUDGE) vps WPC No.22474/2010 3 WPC No.22474/2010 4