IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2008 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 37538 of 2007(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- SUNDARESAN NAIR, RETIRED POLICE CONSTABLE (PCT 4456) RESIDING AT ERAPPUKUZHI PUTHEN VEEDU, KODAPPANAKUNNU PO., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. K.SIJU SRI.PRATHEESH.P RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN SC KPSC, SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No. 37538 of 2007 -------------------------- Dated this the 4th March, 2008 J U D G M E N T While serving as a Police Constable, petitioner retired on superannuation in March 2003. Apparently, in 1996 a disciplinary action was initiated against him on the premise that there was lapse on his part while he was posted for night duty at the Trivandrum University College. This led to disciplinary enquiry and ultimately an order was passed by the City Police Commissioner on 24.8.1996. (Learned counsel for the petitioner says that the actual date is 24.8.1998). Petitioner did not prefer any statutory appeal therefrom. After his retirement he preferred a review. This was dismissed under Exhibit P1. Though the Government had taken a tentative decision to reduce the punishment from barring of three increments with cumulative effect to two increments without a cumulative effect, apparently, Government thought it necessary to consult the Public Service Commission. Commission disagreed with the Government. The Commission opined that though the punishment was imposed in 1998 petitioner had not preferred W.P ( C) No. 37538 of 2007 2 any statutory appeal till he retired in 2003 and an application for review itself was filed before the Government only in the year 2005. Taking note of the above circumstances, Government rejected the review as per Exhibit P1 order which has been challenged in this writ petition. 2. When the writ petition came up for admission the following order was passed. “Petitioner shall produce a copy of the order sought to be reviewed by the Government. Petitioner shall also file an affidavit explaining the reasons why he did not approach the Government till 2005 though there was an order of punishment passed by the City Commissioner of Police, Thiruvananthapuram, in 1996.” 3. Accordingly, petitioner produced the order of original punishment which is dated 24.8.1998. In so far as the explanation sought for in the order as mentioned above is concerned, the only explanation is contained in paragraph 4 of the affidavit filed by the petitioner, which reads as follows: “The petitioner not filed any appeal till his retirement on 30.4.2003 fearing displeasure and victimization by the higher officials. Since the petitioner was a member of a disciplined force refrained himself from appealing against the order of his superior officers due to his devotion and commitment to disciplined of the police force.” W.P ( C) No. 37538 of 2007 3 4. In my view, there is serious laches and negligence on the part of the petitioner in not challenging the original order of punishment within a reasonable time of its issue. After all the order was passed on 24.8.1998. There was nothing which stood in the way of the petitioner availing a statutory appeal before the competent authority within a reasonable time. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the punishment imposed under Exhibit P2 was not a major penalty. It was not necessary for the Government to consult the PSC before disposing of the review. Even if consultation as such was not mandatory, it is open to the Government to consult the PSC. At any rate, there is nothing wrong in the Government decision. Taking note of the fact that there was such unexplained delay on the part of the petitioner in not having filed any statutory appeal for a period of more than six years, I do not find any error of jurisdiction or error of law in the stand taken by the Government in Exhibit P1. The writ petition is bereft of merit and hence dismissed. (V.GIRI, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No. 37538 of 2007 4 K.THANKAPPAN,J CRL.A. NO.92 OF 1999 W.P ( C) No. 37538 of 2007 5 ORDER 25th May, 2007