IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2010 / 28TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 22431 of 2010(D) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- P.SUKUMARAN, INSPECTOR OF POLICE, S.B.C.I.D., TRIVANDRUM CITY. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KANNUR. 3. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, NORTH ZONE, KOZHIKODE. 4. STATE OF KERALA- REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKATH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 22431 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner joined service as Sub Inspector. During 1999, four disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and the disciplinary authority finalised the proceedings imposing punishments on him. It would appear that the petitioner did not file an appeal as provided in the Rules. However, during 2001, petitioner submitted representations to the then Chief Minister, which were forwarded to the Director General of Police for further action. Those were treated as appeals and the proceedings resulted in Exts.P1 to P1(d) orders by which the punishments were reduced to that of censure. 2. Subsequently, by Ext.P7 order dated 22.5.2003, the petitioner was informed that Exts.P1 to P1(d) proceedings were cancelled. It is stated that before the receipt of Ext.P7, petitioner was served with Exts.P5 and P6 orders, disposing of the appeals, which were concluded by Exts.P1 and P1(d). Subsequent to Ext.P7, the petitioner received Ext.P8 order from the Deputy Inspector General of Police disposing of his appeal which was already disposed of by Ext.P1(b) order and upholding the order of WPC No.22431/2010 2 punishment imposed by the S.P. of Pathanamthitta. 3. Exts.P5 to P8 orders were challenged by him in W.P.(C) No.3395 of 2003 and the writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P9 judgment, setting setting aside the impugned orders on the ground that these orders were passed without notice to the petitioner and leaving open the contentions raised by the petitioner. 4. Subsequently, Exts.P10 and P12 notices were issued by respondents 2 and 3, informing the petitioner that two of the appeals filed were tentatively decided to be rejected and he was called upon to show cause against such order. Exts.P11 and P13 are the replies filed by the petitioner. Now by Exts.P14 and P15, final orders are passed rejecting the appeals. These orders are under challenge in this writ petition. 5. The contention raised by the petitioner is that Exts.P14 and P15 orders are illegal in as much as the same do not comply with Rule 35 of the Kerala Police Departmental Inquires, Punishment and Appeal Rules. It is his contention that the orders reflect non application of mind and therefore calls for interference. 6. However, I am not persuaded to agree with the petitioner. As already seen, appeals were filed by the petitioner and by Ext.P9 this Court directed the appellate authority to dispose of the appeals WPC No.22431/2010 3 with notice to the petitioner. In respect of two appeals, Exts.P10 and P11 notices were issued. A reading of these notices show that the appellate authority had gone through the appeal in detail with reference to the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and tentatively decided to reject the appeals. By these notices, the petitioner was called upon to show cause against such proposal. Therefore consideration of the contentions raised by the petitioner in the appeals filed by him are reflected in these orders. To these notices, petitioner submitted Exts.P11 and P13 replies. In the impugned order, it is stated that in the replies filed by the petitioner, he did not make out any good reasons for differing with the tentative view taken by the appellate authority for rejecting the appeals. The above circumstances do not persuade me to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that Exts.P14 and P15 orders are passed without adverting to the contentions raised by him as are required of the appellate authority in terms of Rule 35 of the Kerala Police Departmental Inquires, Punishment and Appeal Rules. The writ petition fails and it is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC (JUDGE) vps WPC No.22431/2010 4 WPC No.22431/2010 5