IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2010 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 36230 of 2010(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.K.RADHA,W/O.O.N.KRISHNAN,AGED 53 YRS, SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT,REGIONALTRANSPORT OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.K.I.SAGEER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,DEPT.OF TRANSPORT,GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KOTTAYAM,PIN-686001. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 36230 of 2010 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 6th day of December, 2010. J U D G M E N T The Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau made a surprise check in the Regional Transport Office, Kottayam, where the petitioner is working as a Superintendent. The petitioner was given Ext. P1 memo of charges, wherein it was alleged that the petitioner has failed to mark attendance in the afternoon of 13.11.2007. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that even after three years, the disciplinary proceedings initiated by Ext. P1 have not yet been finalized. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to finalize the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner as pet Ext. P1 memo of charges and Ext. P1(a) statement of allegations, forthwith, on the basis of Ext. P2 explanation offered by the petitioner; ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of Ext. P3 explanation offered by the petitioner forthwith; iii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of Ext. P3 representation forthwith.” 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. In Ext. P1, the only allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner failed to mark the attendance in the afternoon of 13.11.2007. There is no allegation that the petitioner has not worked on that day and was unauthorizedly absent. As such, I am of opinion that the charge itself is a trivial one. The petitioner has already submitted Ext. P3 explanation explaining that on that particular day, the petitioner could not mark the attendance in the afternoon because she was heavily overworked. I do not think that for deciding a disciplinary action in respect of that, it would require more than 3 W.P.C. No. 36230/2010 -: 2 :- years. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to see that the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner initiated by Ext. P1 is completed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE.