IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 3RD APRIL 2008 / 14TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 11149 of 2008(R) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.C. VISWANATHAN, S/O. NALINAKSHA MENON, AGED 47 YEARS, CHAKKUNGAL HOUSE, THURUTHISSERY, MAIKKAD P.O., ERNAKULAM, WORKING AT L.D.CLERK, MUNSIFF COURT, ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.B.N.SHIVSANKAR RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, ARTILLERY RECORDS, NAZIK ROAD CAMP, NAZIK. 2. ZILLAH SAINIK WELFARE OFFICER, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. REGISTRAR (VIGILANCE), HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 4. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, NORTH PARAVUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No. 11149 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 3rd April, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is working as L.D Clerk in the Munsiff's Court, Aluva. He was earlier working as General Clerk in the Army. Apparently, due to personal reasons, he could not report for duty on an occasion and he was declared as deserter. Subsequently, he was dismissed from Army. Petitioner submits that he became aware of these proceedings in the year 1989. But in the meanwhile, he had come back to his native place in the year 1987 and he had responded to a notification issued by the PSC. Apparently, the details as to his discharge from the service of the Army were not disclosed in the application. According to the petitioner, this was on account of the fact that he was not aware of such details when the application was filled up. He joined service in the year 1989 and he has continued thereafter. Now he has been served with Exhibit P3 memo of charges stating that relevant details as to his discharge from the Army were willfully suppressed by him in his application to the PSC and that it might W.P ( C) No. 11149 of 2008 2 warrant major punishment also. 2. According to the petitioner, a clarification in the discharge certificate as such would place the matter beyond any doubt. Therefore, he has sought for an endorsement to be made in the discharge certificate, as Exhibit P4. An enquiry is to be conducted on Exhibit P4. 3. I heard learned standing counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Government Pleader also . Lapse, if any, on the part of the petitioner took place in the year 1989 and petitioner has continued in service thereafter. Misconduct also relates to the said alleged lapse. Action, if any, taken on Exhibit P4 would have a bearing on the defence of the petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings initiated under Exhibit P3. It is therefore appropriate that needful be done on the petitioner’s request as contained in Exhibit P4 before further proceedings are taken as such. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to take a decision on Exhibit P4 treating it as a request, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment which the petitioner shall produce W.P ( C) No. 11149 of 2008 3 before the 1st respondent along with a copy of this writ petition. Petitioner shall be heard before such decision is taken either in person or through authorized representative. Further proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P4 shall be kept in abeyance till such orders are passed by the 1st respondent in the manner aforementioned (V.GIRI, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No. 11149 of 2008 4 K.THANKAPPAN,J CRL.A. NO.92 OF 1999 ORDER 25th May, 2007 W.P ( C) No. 11149 of 2008 5 Common issues are raised for consideration in all these writ petitions. Reference is made to the facts in Writ Petition No.4562/2008 for the sake of convenience.