IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2008 / 18TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 876 of 2008(D) ------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------ V.M.MEERANKUNU, JUNIOR ARABIC TEACHER, GOVERNMENT MODEL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, CHERUVATOOR, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MUHAMMED RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT (ANNEX), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ======================= W.P.(C) No. 876 of 2008(D) ======================= Dated this the 8th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner was proceeded against indisciplinary proceedings for very serious misconduct. In spite of the nature of the misconduct of which the petitioner was found guilty, the authorities let him off with a very lenient punishment of barring of three increments. The petitioner now challenges the orders in those disciplinary proceedings, especially the order refusing to treat his period of suspension as duty. Petitioner filed a revision before the Government which was directed to be disposed of by Ext.P10. By Ext.P11, the Government rejected the revision also. The petitioner now challenges Exts. P1, P2, P5, P7 and P11 which are the orders passed by the original, appellate and revisional authorities in the disciplinary proceedings. One of the grounds stated in Ext.P11 order for rejecting the revision petition is that the revision petition has been filed after long six years of imposition of punishment. I find that Ext.P7 order was passed W.P.(C) No. 876/2008/D -2- as early as on 30.3.1998. Petitioner filed the representations only on 23.12.2004 and 24.5.2006. There is no plausible explanation offered by the petitioner for the abnormally long delay. As such the petitioner is guilty of delay and laches. Further on going through the impugned orders I do not find any merits in the contention of the petitioner also. In the above circumstances, especially considering the nature of the misconduct committed by the petitioner, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the orders in the disciplinary proceedings against petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE jp