IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2010 / 21ST JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 35934 of 2005(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ALEDANDER, S/O. LONAPPAN, PCR 3807, KODAKARA POLICE STATION, NOW RESIDING AT KATTIL KUPPAYAL, KEZHAKA KODDALY, PADI P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH CHAKYAT RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, MINISTRY FOR HOME AFFAIRS, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, NORTH ZONE, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THRISSUR. 4. THE DISTRICT POLICE SUPERINTENDENT THRISSUR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.35934 OF 2005 (C) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a Police Constable. He was issued Ext.P3 memo of charges. The allegation in Ext.P3 is that on 6.4.2000, at about 9.50 p.m., petitioner's younger brother Sri. Joy was taken into custody in an intoxicated condition. Petitioner and another brother came to the Police Station and got them released on condition that his brother would be surrendered on the next day. Thereafter, he and others were driving in the city in a van, under the influence of alcohol and challenged and threatened the members of the Flying Squad which took his brother into custody and that coming to know of the same, Sub Inspector of Police took everyone in custody. On subjecting the petitioner for medical examination, he was found to be under the influence of liquor. It is stated that although he denied the allegation against him he was finally imposed a punishment of barring of increment with cumulative effect as per Ext.P8 order. His appeal was rejected by Ext.P9 and revisions filed by him were also rejected by the Inspector General of Police and the Government by WPC.No.35934 /05 :2 : Exts.P10 and P11 orders. It is challenging Exts.P8,P9,P10 and P11 orders the writ petition is filed. 2. Counsel contended that the petitioner did not commit any misconduct and that the same was mentioned in the statement given to the Enquiry Officer. It is stated that it was despite the absence of any proof or evidence that he has been found guilty and imposed the punishment. It is also stated that the appellate authority and the revisional authority did not consider the issues raised and therefore these orders are also bad for non-application of mind. 3. On the other hand, what is disclosed in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents is that on 6.4.2000 at 9.15 p.m., from the public road in front of the Bini Tourist Home Trissur, petitioner's younger brother, Joy, was taken into custody for the reason that he was creating trouble and nuisance to the public under the influence of alcohol. He was taken into custody by Flying Squad No.1 and was handed over to Trissur Town East Police Station for necessary action. At that night itself petitioner with his brothers came to the police station, got his brother released on bond, on WPC.No.35934 /05 :3 : condition that he would be produced in the police station in the next day. After getting his brother released, petitioner and others traveled in a tempo van through the Trissur town met an Assistant Inspector of Police and obtained the details of the Flying Squad which arrested his brother. They again traveled in a tempo van through the city to trace out the Flying Squad. It is stated that on tracing the Flying Squad the petitioner and other quarreled with the men in the Flying Squad and that they were taken into custody and were arrested. Thereafter petitioner was subjected to medical examination. On 7.4.2001 medical examination was conducted and it was found that the petitioner had consumed alcohol. It is stated that the Superintendent of Police Trissur ordered an oral enquiry against the petitioner and the Circle Inspector of Police, Ollur was appointed as the enquiry officer. Accordingly, memo of charges was served on the petitioner and evidence was collected from the policemen who were in charge of the Flying Squad Nos.1 and 2 and the Sub Inspector concerned. Statement was also recorded from the petitioner. It is stated that enquiry report was considered and it was thereafter that minor penalty proceedings were initiated against the WPC.No.35934 /05 :4 : petitioner and show cause notice was issued. It is stated that considering the matter in its entirety, disciplinary authority was satisfied that misconducts were proved made out and it was therefore that Ext.P8 order of punishment was imposed. Respondent also confirmed about the dismissal of the appeal and revisions. 4. In a proceedings of judicial review, where disciplinary proceedings are under challenge, this court will interfere with the proceedings only if there is violation of principles of natural justice, perversity of findings or if the punishment is disproportionate to the proved misconduct. 5. The case of violation of principles of natural justice has been made out and therefore, this court need not consider that question. 6. The other issue is regarding perversity of findings. The proceedings initiated against the petitioner by Ext.P3 memo of charges is for minor penalty. For minor penalty, rules do not require even an enquiry and all that is required is that the delinquent should be put on notice and should be given an opportunity to make his representation in this matter. In this case, WPC.No.35934 /05 :5 : such opportunities have been granted and the petitioner made his representation also. On receipt of the representation, materials available before the disciplinary authority including enquiry report were considered and it was on that basis punishment was imposed on the petitioner. Having regard to the fact that the findings of the disciplinary authority are consistent with the evidence and documents available before it, it cannot be said that the findings are perverse, calling for interference in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. Evidently, gravity of misconduct proved against the petitioner has to be valued in the light of the responsibility that he held in the organization. Petitioner belongs to a disciplined force and is a police constable who has to enforce law and order. It is such a person who has committed misconduct, that too in a drunken stage and has quarrelled with other police constables who were discharged the duties. If such misconducts are proved in a proceedings held in terms of the Rules 6, punishment of barring of one increment for one year without cumulative effect cannot by any stretch of imagination to be said to be disproportionate to the WPC.No.35934 /05 :6 : gravity of the misconduct. Therefore that argument of the petitioner has to fail. I do not find anything illegal in the proceedings. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/