IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2010 / 20TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15952 of 2010(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- R.K.JAYARAJAN, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (TRAFFIC), KOZHIKODE BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SRI.S.A.ANAND RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TVM. PIN-695 001 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, TVM. PIN-695 010 3. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE STATE CRIME RECORDS BUREAU, TVM GOVERNMENT PLEADER ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).15952/2010 -------------------- Dated this the 10th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner was placed under suspension on 11.12.2003. By order dated 13.2.2004, he was reinstated in service. Thereafter Ext.P1 memo of charges was issued to the petitioner in February, 2010. On receipt of the memo of charges, he submitted Ext.P2 explanation also. In this writ petition, petitioner mainly complains of the delay in finalizing the disciplinary action pending against him. 2. In several case of this nature, this Court has emphasized the need of expeditious completion of disciplinary proceedings initiated against Government servants. The same reasoning applies to this case also. 3. The suspension was way back in 2003 and memo of charges is issued only in February, 2010. This itself is belated. Be that as it may, now that memo of charges has been issued to which W.P.(C).15952/10 2 explanation has also been submitted, respondents should expedite the disciplinary action and conclude the same. 4. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing the 3rd respondent to enquire into the disciplinary action against the petitioner and pass final orders in the matter. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six months of production of a copy of this judgment, along with the copy of the writ petition. Needless to say, the contentions raised by the petitioner on the merits of the matter are left open. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs