IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2008 / 5TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 3103 of 2008(T) PETITIONER: ---------------------- E.T.MATHEW, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBCID, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THRISSUR RANGE, THRISSUR. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THRISSUR. 5. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (ADMINISTRATION), THRISSUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.3103 of 2008 T ------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as a Deputy Superintendent of Police and is due to retire on 31.5.2008. As per Ext.P1, departmental proceedings were initiated against him. Simultaneously criminal cases also have been instituted. It is noteworthy that by Ext.P2 dated 11.5.1989, the the petitioner was reinstated in service. Ext.P3 memo of charges is dated 11.10.1988 and the petitioner has submitted his explanation dated 12.12.1988. It seems that an oral enquiry was completed and apparently the minutes were submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police on 9.5.1990. It further seems that the report is pending before the Inspector General of Police. Apparently, the delay in the completion of the disciplinary proceedings is on account of the pendency of the criminal case as well. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that where the disciplinary proceedings are unduly W.P.(C).NO.3103/08 :: 2 :: prolonged and the simultaneous criminal proceedings are also unduly delayed, there would be adequate grounds for the disciplinary authority to go ahead with the report of the disciplinary enquiry. Reference is made to the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in M.Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. {AIR 1999 SC 1416}. The petitioner has sought for an expeditious completion of the enquiry and has submitted Ext.P7 before the 2nd respondent. 3. Normally, if there is a disciplinary enquiry as also a criminal case arising from the very same transaction, the disciplinary enquiry could be completed only after completion of the criminal proceedings. This is what is contemplated in Rule 10A of the Kerala Police Departmental Inquiries, Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1958. But non-completion of the criminal case for a period of almost two decades would justify the completion of the disciplinary enquiry ahead of the same, especially taking note of the fact that the incumbent is due to retire shortly. W.P.(C).NO.3103/08 :: 3 :: In the circumstances, after having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 1 and 2 to look into Exts.P6 and P7 and take appropriate steps to see that the disciplinary enquiry initiated against the petitioner on Ext.P3 memo of charges is finalised at the earliest, at any rate, on or before 31.3.2008. It is made clear that this direction will operate, notwithstanding the delay in completion of the criminal case arising from Crime No.237/88 of the Chavakkad Police Station. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 2nd respondent at the earliest. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge W.P.(C).NO.3103/08 :: 4 ::