IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2008 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 7243 of 2008(K) PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. K.K.MOHANDAS, AGED 43, S/O.NAMBIKUTTY, MADATHIL, P.O.ARIKKULAM, QUILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. M.P.APPOOTTY, AGED 37, S/O.APPUKUTTAN, KIZHAKKEDATHU PARAMBU, KAKKODI P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.SREEJITH RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, KOZHIKODE CITY, KOZHIKODE. 3. ASSISTANT POLICE COMMISSIONER, CRIME DETACHMENT, KOZHIKODE CITY. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.7243 of 2008 ------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioners are facing disciplinary action as evidenced by Exts.P4 and P5. They challenge Ext.P7 order, by which their request to keep in abeyance the disciplinary proceedings pending final disposal of Crime Case No.234/05 of the Feroke Police Station, was rejected. According to them, the same allegations are contained in the memo of charges and relate to the same transaction forming the subject matter of Crime No.234/05 of the Feroke Police Station. The contention is that the petitioners would be prejudiced on account of the fact that they might be compelled to reveal their defence which they would have taken in the criminal case, in the course of adducing evidence in the disciplinary proceedings. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioners Mr.Sreejith and learned Senior Government Pleader Mr.Nandakumar. 3. The degree of proof required in the disciplinary proceedings and the criminal prosecution is different. There is no law which prohibits disciplinary proceedings and criminal W.P.(C).NO.7243/08 :: 2 :: proceedings being continued in parallel, merely because allegations raised in two cases emanate from the same transaction. After all, the consequence of disciplinary enquiry and the consequence of the criminal prosecution are obviously different. 4. I find it difficult to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that their defence in the disciplinary proceedings will be prejudiced, if the disciplinary proceedings are allowed to continue before the criminal case is over. As mentioned above, the degree of proof is vastly different and the nature of the proceedings are also completely different. Consequently, the apprehension of prejudice as such, is not well founded. In the circumstances, the writ petition is bereft of merit and the same is dismissed. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge