IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 1ST ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 28167 of 2008(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- L.MOHANAN, HEAD CONSTABLE (H.C.T 5367) VENJARAMOODU POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RESIDING AT KUNNUVILA VEEDU, THUNDATHIL (P.O.) KARIYAVATTOM, VIA-CHENKOTTUKONAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.THALIYAL R. GOPAKUMAR SRI.N.P.PRAJEESH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RANGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.Ravindran, J. ===================== W.P(C).No.28167 of 2008 ===================== Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is presently working as Head Constable. He is due to retire from service on 30.9.2008 on attaining the age of superannuation. 2. In disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, a punishment of barring of one increment without cumulative effect was imposed on him. This was as per order dated 6.1.2004 passed by the Superintendent of Police (Rural), Thiruvananthapuram. A copy of the order imposing punishment was served on the petitioner on 25.1.2004. The petitioner did not challenge the order imposing punishment in time. According to the petitioner, the order imposing punishment was not served on him and he came to know about the said order only when he came across Ext.P3 proceedings dated 26.6.2007. It discloses that he was superseded for the reason that punishment of barring of one increment without cumulative effect was imposed on him. The petitioner thereupon challenged the order imposing punishment by filing Ext.P5 appeal dated 20.11.2007 before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Thiruvananthapuram Range. That appeal was rejected as time barred and the decision was communicated to the petitioner by Ext.P6 letter dated 11.7.2008 sent by the Superintendent of Police (Rural), WP(C) 28167/08 -: 2 :- Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner thereupon filed W.P.(C) No.24594 of 2008 in this Court challenging Ext.P6. By judgment delivered on 16.9.2008, the said Writ Petition was dismissed reserving liberty with the petitioner to file a petition for review before the Government under Rule 36A of the Kerala Police Departmental Enquiries, Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1958. The petitioner has in this Writ Petition submitted that he was wrongly superseded for promotion to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector of Police ignoring the effect of Rule 28(ii) of Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules. The petitioner further submitted that he has submitted Ext.P8 representation dated 4.9.2008 before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Thiruvananthapuram Range bringing to his notice the said fact and claiming promotion with effect from the date on which his junior was promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police. 3. I have heard Sri.Thaliyal R.Gopakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Anu Sivaraman, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the petitioner is due to retire on 30.9.2008, unless Ext.P8 is disposed of expeditiously, the petitioner will suffer irreparable injury and loss. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner was superseded in the year 2007 and that it is on the verge of retirement that he has approached the Deputy Inspector General of Police complaining about his supersession. WP(C) 28167/08 -: 3 :- 4. Whether the petitioner was wrongly superseded or not for promotion to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector of Police is essentially a matter for the second respondent to decide at least in the first instance. The petitioner has in Ext.P8 representation addressed to the second respondent sought for an intervention in the matter. It is not disputed that the petitioner is due to retire on 30.9.2008. 5. In these circumstances, I dispose of the Writ Petition with a direction to the second respondent to consider Ext.P8 and pass orders thereon expeditiously and in any case within one month from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment. If the second respondent finds that the petitioner was wrongly superseded and was entitled to be promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, the second respondent shall grant him all consequential service benefits. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 24/9