IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2010 / 2ND ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18406 of 2010(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- K.C.GEORGEKUTTY,DY.SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,NARCOTIC CELL,WAYANAD. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JAMES RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,HOME(H)AND VIGILANCE CONVENOR OF DEPARTMENT PROMOTION COMMITTEE(HIGHER) GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,SIG II, CBCID,ERNAKULAM,(SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ORGANIZED CRIME DIVISION II,CBCID,KALOOR, ERNAKULAM)> 4. S.SASIKUMAR,DY.S.P.POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHAKKAD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. K.J.SKARIA,RETIRED DY.S.P.,KANNAMPLACKAL HOUSE,KOODAPPALLUM,RAMAPURAM,KOTTYAM. 6. L.K.RAMACHANDRAN,DY.S,P.,AIR PORT SECURITY,NEDUMBASSERY AIRPORT,ERNAKULAM. 7. ALEX K.JOHN,DY.S.P,ORGANIZED CRIME UNIT, CBCID,KALOOR,ERNAKULAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 18406 OF 2010 (A) ===================== Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a Deputy Superintendent of Police. Ext.P1 is the list of Dy.SPs, who are likely to be included in the field of choice for convening DPC (Higher) 2006 for the preparation of select list of Dy.Sps fit for promotion as Superintendent of Police (Non IPS). In this list, the petitioner's name was included at Sl.No.14. However, by Ext.P2, an oral enquiry was ordered against the petitioner, as a result of which, his case was not considered by the DPC. He represented in the matter, but however, by Ext.P6 his representation was rejected, stating that reason for supersession still subsists. 2. Evidently, therefore, the reason for supersession is pendency of the oral enquiry ordered against the petitioner and according to the respondents, so long as the proceedings subsists, his case cannot be considered. 3. The grievance of the petitioner therefore can be given an effective redressal only if the oral enquiry ordered by Ext.P2 is concluded on an expeditious basis. The oral enquiry was ordered WPC No. 18406/10 :2 : as early as on 25/8/09, and so far, no appreciable progress has been achieved. Once a disciplinary action has been initiated against a Government servant, it is necessary that the same should be given an expeditious finality, so that the uncertainty is removed. 4. Having regard to the above, I direct respondents 1 and 2 to take steps for expeditious completion of the oral enquiry ordered against the petitioner by Ext.P2. It is directed that necessary action in this behalf shall be taken and the matter shall be finalised as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 3 months of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp