IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2010 / 28TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 2357 of 2010(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- M.A.UMMER, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.ALIYAR, MOOLAYIL HOUSE, KAVUMKARA, VELLOORKUNNAM, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.S.A.ANAND SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM RURAL, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALUVA. 3. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, (CENTRAL RANGE), OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CENTRAL RANGE, ERNAKULAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.2357/10 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 6.7.04 IN C.C.NO.364/99 IN THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF the ORDER NO.H2/28135/2004/E.R. DT 24.8.04 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.APPEAL NO.642 OF 2004 DT 30.7.05 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF the ORDER DT 20.2.006 IN CRL.M.A.NO.521 OF 2006. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 15.12.2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT CHALLENGING EXT.P2. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING EXT.P6. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC 24206/06 DT 3.1.2007. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 22.1.2007 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DT 10.8.07 IN CRL.R.P.NO.176 OF 2006. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DT 28.7.2008 IN CRL.M.A.NO.7227 OF 2008 IN CRL.R.P.NO.176 OF 2006. EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DT 25.6.01 SUBMITTED TO THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM RURAL. EXT.P13: TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION DT 25.6.2010 BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 2357 OF 2010 (T) ===================== Dated this the 19th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was a Police Constable. Based on a conviction suffered by him in a criminal case, he was removed from service as per Ext.P2 order. He filed an appeal and that was rejected by Ext.P9. Against the appellate order, he has filed Ext.P13 seeking review and that was submitted through the 2nd respondent. However, 2nd respondent by his endorsement dated 30/6/2010 returned Ext.P13 review petition on the ground that the same is time barred under Rule 36(C) of the Kerala Police Departmental Inquiries, Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1958. It is these proceedings which are under challenge in the writ petition. 2. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Rule 36(C) relied on by the 2nd respondent deals with the power of the Government to review an original order passed by the Government on an application filed by an affected person. In this case, petitioner is not seeking review of original order passed by the Government and therefore Rule 36(C) is inapplicable to the case in question. WPC No. 2357/10 :2 : 3. Ext.P13 review filed by the petitioner has to be treated as filed under Rule 36(A), which does not provide for any time limit. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the 2nd respondent returning Ext.P13 to the petitioner cannot be sustained. Accordingly, order dated 30/6/2010 returning Ext.P13 review filed by the petitioner is set aside. 4. Petitioner is directed to resubmit Ext.P13 to the 2nd respondent, who shall forward the same to the 1st respondent for final orders in the matter. It is directed that on submission of Ext.P13, the 2nd respondent shall forward it to the 1st respondent, within three weeks and the 1st respondent shall consider the review at any rate within three months of its receipt. 5. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp