IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 23RD MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 38543 of 2003(L) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V. LIMA GEORGE, RETIRED SUB INSPECTOR, VENATTU HOUSE, MALIPPURAM P.O. BY MR. M.C. NAMBIAR – ADVOCATE. MR.C.ARUN PRASANTH - ADVOCATE MR.TESMY VARGHESE – ADVOCATE. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, COCHIN CITY. 2. THE DIG OF POLICE, THRISSUR RANGE. 3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, SOUTH ZONE, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, STATE OF KERALA. 5. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, STATE OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. MS. SMITH SUKUMAR - GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 38543 of 2003 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PROMOTION ORDER TO THE CADRE OF ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE WITH EFFECT FROM 01.01.1997 DTD 23.11.1999. EXT.P2: COPY OF ASST. COMMISSIONER'S REPORT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY THE PETITIONER VISITING NASEEMA'S HOUSE. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER ISSUED BY THE R1 DATED 13.05.1997. EXT.P5; COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT CONDUCTED BY THE ENQUIRY OFFICER DATED 29.8.97. EXT.P6; COPY OF THE REVERSION ORDER DATED 13.11.1997. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED TO THE DIG AGAINST EXT. P6 DATED 15.12.1997. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE DIG REJECTING THE APPEAL DATED 30.3.1998. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, SOUTH ZONE, DATED 22.6.98. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.11.1998. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.38543 OF 2003 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner joined as a Police Constable in the service of the Government of Kerala, on 15.3.1970 and was promoted as Head Constable in 1988. While so, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on certain allegations of misconduct which resulted in Ext.P6 order dated 13.11.1997 imposing on him the punishment of reversion as Police Constable for a period of one year. The petitioner filed an appeal, which resulted in Ext.P10 order, whereby the punishment imposed on the petitioner has been converted into one of barring of his next increment with cumulative effect for a period of two years. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P10 order. The petitioner also raises a contention that since subsequently by Ext.P1 dated 23.11.1999 the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector, his reversion should have been to the post of Head Constable and not as Constable. According to the petitioner, the punishment of barring of increment is a higher punishment than that of W.P.(c)No.38543/03 2 reversion for a period of one year. He further submits that it was after he had undergone the punishment of reversion for one year that Ext.P10 has been passed and therefore the barring of increment amounts to double punishment. 2. The learned Government Pleader with the help of a counter affidavit opposes the contentions. According to her, by Ext.P10 order, the petitioner's punishment of reversion has been reduced to one of barring of increment with cumulative effect for a period of two years. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. I do not find any merit in the contention of the petitioner that he should have been reverted as Head Constable and not as Police Constable. Ext.P6 order dated 13.11.1997 imposing on the petitioner punishment of reversion of Constable was at a time when he was Head Constable and it is only after the punishment was undergone by him, he was promoted as ASI. That being so, there is no merit in the contention that he should have been reverted as Head Constable. If that be accepted, that would mean that the petitioner would not be visited with any punishment at all. But in so far as Ext.P10 is concerned, if the petitioner is of W.P.(c)No.38543/03 3 opinion that rather than the punishment of barring of increment with cumulative effect for two years, the punishment of reversion would be more less harmful to his service, and since in an appeal filed by him without any notice for enhancement of the punishment, he could not have been visited with a harsher punishment, I am of opinion that Ext.P10 is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, Ext.P10 is quashed and Ext.P6 is restored with consequential benefits. Orders in this regard shall be passed and consequential benefits given to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.38543/03 4