IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH DECEMBER 2008 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 37000 of 2008(D) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- S.PRASANNA KUMAR, INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR (IB), OFFICE OF THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (INT.), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU, SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI, SRI.T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/12/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.37000 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 18th December, 2008. J U D G M E N T Heard Sri.K.Jaju Babu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Anu Sivaraman, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is working as Commercial Tax Inspector in the Department of Commercial Taxes. The grievance voiced by the petitioner is that on flimsy grounds, disciplinary action has been initiated against him by issuing Ext.P1 memo of charges dated 21.7.2008, and that though he has submitted his written statement of defence, evidenced by Ext.P2, there has been no progress in the enquiry. The petitioner submits that the Departmental Promotion Committee to select officers eligible for promotion to the category of Commercial Tax Officer/Sales Tax Officer is likely to be held shortly and that unless the disciplinary action against him is finalised, the petitioner's case is not likely to be considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee. In W.P.(C) No.37000/2008 2 this writ petition, the petitioner inter alia prays for a direction to the respondents to finalise the disciplinary action initiated against him expeditiously, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. 3. The pleadings disclose that the memo of charges was issued about five months back. The petitioner has also submitted his reply within the time granted by the respondents. The only allegation against the petitioner in Ext.P1 is that though he had reported Rs.450/= in the Cash Declaration Register on 22.4.2006, there was a shortage of Rs.100/=, when a surprise check was held by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau on that day, a few minutes after the petitioner made the entry in the Cash Declaration Register. The petitioner's explanation is that after he had entered the details regarding the cash in his possession in the Cash Declaration Register, he has made a donation of Rs.100/= towards election fund of the United Democratic Front and that the shortage was on account of such payment. The petitioner further submits that he cannot therefore be proceeded against for shortage and that W.P.(C) No.37000/2008 3 he can be proceeded against only if money in excess of what was entered in the Cash Declaration Register was found in his possession. On going through the memo of charges and the explanation offered by the petitioner, I am prima facie satisfied that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner should not be kept pending indefinitely. Nearly five months have passed after the memo of charges was issued to the petitioner. In these circumstances, I dispose of the Writ Petition with a direction to the competent authority among the respondents to finalise the disciplinary action initiated against the petitioner within a period of three months from today. If, in the meanwhile, the Department Promotion Committee meets, the Committee shall consider the case of the petitioner also, in the manner prescribed in Rule 28(b)(i)(7) of Part II of the K.S. & S.S.R. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE nj.