IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2009 / 22ND ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 31573 of 2007(H) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SHAJI CHERIAN, AGED 35 YRS, S/O. K.V.CHERIAN, KOTTANADAN HOUSE, KURUPPAMPADY P.O., MODAKARAYIL, PERUMBAVOOR (TCE.80003 OF CENTRAL POLICE STATION ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. MR.K.V.SABU RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT , HOME DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, COCHIN CITY. 4. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ERNAKULAM RANGE, ERNAKULAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN FOR R THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P(C) No.31573 of 2007-H ------------------------------ Dated this the 13th day of July, 2009. J U D G M E N T Heard Sri.K.V.Sabu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Anu Sivaraman, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner, while he was working as Police Constable at Ernakulam Central Police Station was proceeded against for an act of misconduct and removed from service. The charge against the petitioner is that at 2 AM on 30.3.2002 he along with two others went to Jayaraj Bar at Perumbavoor and demanded that liquor be served to them. It is stated that when the workers present in the Bar at that time refused to give liquor, as the Bar was already closed, the petitioner and his men broke the glass shutters of the window of the Bar and intimidated the workers. A complaint was thereupon filed against the petitioner by the Manager of Jayaraj Lodge, Perumbavoor before the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Based on the said complaint a preliminary enquiry was conducted and after preliminary enquiry, disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner by the Commissioner of Police, Kochi. The Circle Inspector of Police was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. Based on the report of enquiry the Commissioner of Police called upon the petitioner to show W.P(C) No.31573 of 2007-H 2 cause why he should not be removed from service. The petitioner submitted a reply. Since the reply submitted by the petitioner was not acceptable, the disciplinary authority removed the petitioner from service by Ext.P1 order passed on 12.5.2004. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ernakulam Range was dismissed by Ext.P2. The review petition filed by the petitioner before the Government was also dismissed by Ext.P4 order. Exts.P1, P2 and P4 are under challenge in this writ petition, wherein the petitioner seeks reinstatement in service. 3. The pleadings disclose that for improper conduct unbecoming of a Police Constable the petitioner was proceeded against. Though a memo of charges was served on him and he was offered adequate opportunity to participate in the enquiry, the petitioner did not respond to the memo of charges or participate in the enquiry. The petitioner, a Police Constable did not co-operate with the enquiry and he was also not willing to obey the directions issued by the Commissioner of Police. The charge against the petitioner was a serious one and it was proved in the enquiry. In the light of the findings in the enquiry report, the Commissioner of Police removed the petitioner from service. In my opinion the petitioner who did not respond when the memo of charges was issued and did not co-operate with the enquiry, does not W.P(C) No.31573 of 2007-H 3 deserve any sympathetic consideration. The charge levelled against the petitioner and proved in the enquiry discloses that his continuance in public service will be detrimental to public interest. I therefore find no merit in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE //True Copy// PA to Judge ab