IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2010 / 9TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1226 of 2010(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.K.REMESAN, HC NO.A.3162, ASI (GRADE), ALAPPUZHA SOUTH POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.PRADEEPKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, SOUTH ZONE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CENTGRAL RANGE, ERNAKULAM. 5. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 6. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (ADMN.), ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 7. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NARCOTIC CELL, ALAPPUZHA. 8. KERALA POLICE ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, STATE COMMITTEE, ERNAKULAM. 9. MOHANDAS, H.C.NO.NOT KNOWN, ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR (GRADE), DCRB, ALAPPUZHA. 10. BIJU KUMAR, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTHIYATHODE POLICE STATION, RECENTLY PROMOTED AND TRANSFERRED TO AS CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION CELL ALAPPUZHA. 11. DHARMAJAN, H.C.NO.NOT KNOWN, ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR (GRADE) KOTHIYATHODE POLICE STATION ALAPPUZHA. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN-R1 TO R7 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 1226 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Head Constable working at South Police Station, Alappuzha. While he was working at Kuthiyathode Police Station, a complaint was preferred pertaining to the delay in registering Crime No.240 of 2008 of that police station. Evidently, that matter was enquired into and the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Administration), Alappuzha submitted a report. On perusing the said report, the 4th respondent found that it prima facie discloses commission of serious dereliction of duty by delaying registration of the aforesaid crime inordinately, without any reason. It was found that the then Sub Inspector of Police and the then Assistant Sub Inspector of Police of Kuthiyathode Police Station and the petitioner were responsible for the said inordinate delay. In the circumstances, as per Ext.P6 dated 3.12.2009, a joint oral enquiry was ordered under Rule 6 of the KPDIP & A Rules against them. It is obvious from Ext.P6 that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Narcotic Cell was authorised to conduct the enquiry as per Rule 8(1)(iii) of the said Rules. This Writ Petition is filed challenging Ext.P6. W.P.(C) NO. 1226/2010 2 2. The contention of the petitioner is that by virtue of his rank in the seniority list of Head Constables, he will be included in the list for consideration for promotion to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector of Police. But, his promotional prospects would be detrimentally affected by the disciplinary action contemplated as per Ext.P6. According to him, the proceedings were initiated against him only to delay or deny his due promotion. The said contention cannot be comprehended. It is evident from Ext.P6 that the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Administration) Alappuzha had conducted a preliminary enquiry and found that the petitioner and the then Sub Inspector of Police and the then Assistant Sub Inspector of Police of Kuthiyathode Police Station have committed serious dereliction of duties by inordinately delaying registration of the crime and a joint oral enquiry was ordered against all of them. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be heard to say that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated with a view to stall his promotion. The contention that initiation and continuation of disciplinary action would adversely affect the promotional prospects of the petitioner cannot be taken as a ground to interfere with Ext.P6. In that context, it is to be noticed that there are sufficient safeguards in the relevant rules to protect the interest of persons like the petitioner, of course, subject to the outcome W.P.(C) NO. 1226/2010 3 of the disciplinary action. For all these reasons, I find no merit in the Writ Petition and it is accordingly dismissed. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) sp/ W.P.(C) NO. 1226/2010 4 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C) NO. 1226/2010 JUDGMENT 29th January, 2010