IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2010 / 7TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 16134 of 2010(N) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ N. VENU, S/O.NATARAJAN, (PCT)8449 OF PETTA POLICE STATION), THERIVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, NEDUMOM, KOVALAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL, SRI.K.NIRMALAN. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, POLICE COMMISSIONERATE OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.16134 of 2010 (N) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 28th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a Police Constable. By Ext.P1 order dated 30/05/2002 he was placed under suspension. This order shows that in a case relating to withdrawal of an amount of Rs.19,11,882/- based on four forged miscellaneous/ contingent bills in the name of the Account Officer, Narcotic Cell, Thiruvananthapuram, a report has been filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram on 18/05/2002 arraying the petitioner also as an accused. It also says that when the Superintendent of Police, Narcotic and Economic Offences Cell, went to arrest the petitioner on 19/05/2002, the petitioner absconded. Subsequently on allegations of unauthorized absence, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and by Ext.P3, the proceedings were finalized by imposing a punishment of barring of three annual increments. Appeal filed by him was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the WP(C) No.16134/2010 -2- proceedings initiated against him for unauthorized absence has since been finalized by Ext.P3, the petitioner ought to be reinstated in service. 2. On instructions, the learned Government Pleader submits that the reasons for suspension as per Ext.P1 are two fold. According to him, one of the reasons is that he is an accused in a case involving withdrawal of substantial amount by submitting four forged Miscellaneous/Contingent Bills. It is also stated that the other was the allegation of unauthorised absence. According to him, insofar as the criminal case is concerned, sanction for prosecution is sought for and is awaited. It is stated that what is finalized by Ext.P3 is only the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner in relation to the unauthorized absence from duty. On these grounds, the learned Government Pleader submits that proceedings are pending against the petitioner and therefore, the Government have ordered not to reinstate the petitioner. Ext.P1 is the order of suspension, which itself show that as contended by the learned Government Pleader the unauthorized absence from duty is not the only reason for placing the petitioner WP(C) No.16134/2010 -3- under suspension. Disciplinary action finalized against the petitioner is only in relation to the unauthorized absence. Since the criminal case initiated against the petitioner is still pending, the respondents cannot be faulted for not concluding the disciplinary proceedings arising out of the charge of fraudulent withdrawal of amounts or for not reinstating the petitioner at this stage. Therefore, as at present, since whole proceedings initiated against the petitioner have not been finalized, a direction for the reinstatement of the petitioner in service cannot be granted. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg