IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 23274 of 2011(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- C.SHAMON, SHA NIVAS, PADAPPAKARA.P.O., KUNDRA, KOLLAM – 691 503. (INSPECTOR, LEGAL METROLOGY DEPARTMENT, KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI DISTRICT) BY ADVS. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR SRI.PRASAD CHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LEGAL METROLOGY DEPARTMENT, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. 2. DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE(LOWER), REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN, OFFICE OF THE CONTROLLER, LEGAL METROLOGY DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. 3. THE CONTROLLER OF LEGAL METROLOGY DEPARTMENT, VIKAS BHAVAN,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. 4. THE DEPUTY CONTROLLER OF LEGAL METROLOGY DEPARTMENT, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. R1 TO R4 BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER SRI.VIJU ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: AMV WPC NO.23274 OF 2011 (H) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT. P1 : COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, ERNAKULAM DATED 28-2-2009. EXT. P2 : COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 24-9-2009. EXT. P3 : COPY OF THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 24-10-2009. EXT. P4 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO.S1-6763/09 DATED 29-10-2009. EXT. P5 : COPY OF THE ORDER SUSPENDING THE PETITIONER DATED 17-5-2010. EXT. P6 : COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE ENQUIRY OFFICER DATED 10-8-2010. EXT. P7 : COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 30-8-2010. EXT. P8 : COPY OF THE SECOND CHARGE MEMO ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 20-10-2010. EXT. P9 : COPY OF THE MEETING DATED 29-3-2011. EXT. P10 : COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE NOTE FILE PERTAINING TO THE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONER. EXT. P11 : COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT NO.255A/10 DATED 07.05.2011 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE AMV K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.23274 of 2011-H. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 11th November, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner, who is working as Inspector in the Legal Metrology Department, Kattappana in Idukki district, has filed this writ petition challenging the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. There were certain allegations against the petitioner with respect to which a vigilance enquiry was conducted. On the basis of Ext.P1 report of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau ('VACB' for short) the petitioner was issued with a charge memo alleging various acts of omission and commission. According to the petitioner, the charges were all baseless and are disputed by him. It is the further case of the petitioner that on a detailed enquiry it has been found that he was innocent. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, the third respondent passed an order reinstating the WP(C).No.23274/2011-H. 2 petitioner in service pending further proceedings. He was thereafter transferred from Aluva to Kattappana in Idukki district. Subsequently, he was served with a notice issued by a second enquiry officer. Though he has submitted his explanation to the same and has co-operated with the enquiry, he complains that the enquiry officer has not submitted his report. Therefore, he seeks the issue of appropriate directions for completing the proceedings expeditiously. 2. The learned Senior Government Pleader Sri.Viju Abraham submits that the petitioner has filed this writ petition on the assumption that the enquiry proceedings are still pending. On the contrary, the enquiry proceedings have culminated in the imposition of a punishment on the petitioner of barring of two increments with cumulative effect. It is also pointed out that the petitioner has already filed an appeal against the said punishment before the Government, which is still pending. In the above circumstances, it is submitted that innocence of the WP(C).No.23274/2011-H. 3 petitioner could be ascertained only after the appeal is considered and disposed of by the Government. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) is about to be convened on 15.11.2011 and therefore he seeks the issue of a direction to consider his name also for promotion adopting the sealed cover procedure. The Government Pleader replies that the said procedure cannot be adopted in the case of the petitioner for the reason that the present petitioner has already been found to be guilty and has been punished. The sealed cover procedure is available only in cases where disciplinary proceedings are pending. 4. I have considered the rival contentions anxiously. In view of the fact that the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner have culminated in the imposition of a punishment as evidenced by Ext.P11 produced by the petitioner along with his reply-affidavit, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to any relief in this writ petition. The petitioner has filed an appeal against the punishment WP(C).No.23274/2011-H. 4 imposed on him, which is pending before the Government. Since the pendency of the proceedings is affecting the career prospects of the petitioner, I am of the view that the appeal is should to be considered and disposed of expeditiously. 5. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of directing the Secretary to Government, Consumer Affairs, Department of Revenue, Thiruvananthapuram to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner also. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the authority concerned for prompt compliance. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, (Judge) Kvs/-