IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2009 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 30558 of 2009(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- PANKAJAKSHAN,NO.830752766 HC/GD/51BN/ CRPF,S/O.P.SUKUMARAN,BANDUAR,UDAPUR, THRIPURA (REMOVED FROM SERVICE), NOW RESIDING AT "VISHNU VILASOM", VELLIMON P.O.,KUNDARA,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.L.G.SURESH BABU RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. COMMANDANT,51,BATTALLION,CRPF, BANDUAR,UDAIPUR,TRIPURA. 2. UNION OF INDIA, REP.BY MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS,NEW DELHI. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN, ASG THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.30558 OF 2009 (L) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was a Head Constable in the CRPF. While working at Gujarat, disciplinary action was initiated against him by Ext.P1. After completing the proceedings he was removed from service by Ext.P2 order dated 26.3.2003. It is challenging Ext.P2 that this writ petition is filed. 2. First of all, the writ petition is highly belated and there is absolutely no explanation forthcoming justifying the delay. Further, proceedings were initiated and completed at the time when the petitioner was working at Gujarat. If that be so, the petitioner ought to have sought his remedies in the Court within whose jurisdiction the cause of action has arisen. 3. Even apart from all this, a reading of Ext.P1 charges show that the petitioner had consumed alcohol while on duty and that too while at Gujarat where prohibition is in force. He is also alleged to have refused to follow lawful orders and neglected duty at the place of his work. These misconducts have been proved and charges WPC.No.30558 /09 :2 : itself reveal that punishments have been imposed on the petitioner on five previous occasions. 4. In these circumstances, having regard to the fact that the misconducts were proved against the petitioner I cannot find fault with the authorities in having removed the petitioner from service. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/