IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 33031 of 2008(G) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- K.S.RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.SUKUMARAN NAIR, MANJAPALLIL VEETIL, KOOTHATTUKULAM BHAGAM, VECHUCHIRA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT (P.C.NO.2144, VECHUCHIRA POLICE STATION) BY ADV. SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REORESEBTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPATMENT OF HOME, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J ----------------------------- W.P.(C) NO: 33031 of 2008 ----------------------------- Dated this 26th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is presently working as Police Constable. He had applied for voluntary retirement from service with effect from 25.7.2005 as per application submitted on 24.4.2005. The said request was not granted. The petitioner continued in service even after 25.7.2005. Later, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and Ext.P4 memo of charges dated 29-8-2008 was served on him by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Special Branch, Pathanamthitta. In this writ petition the petitioner challenges Ext.P4 and prays for a declaration that he has retired from service with effect from 25.7.2005. 2. The petitioner applied for voluntary retirement on 25.7.2005. He claims that on the expiry of the notice period of three months as orders were not passed declining his request, he should be deemed to have retired from service on the notified date. The pleadings disclose that the petitioner did not seek such a declaration, till disciplinary action was initiated against him and Ext.P4 memo of charges was issued in August 2008. It is evident from the conduct of the petitioner that he has filed this writ petition with a view to get over the disciplinary action initiated against him as per Ext.P4. The petitioner who kept quite for nearly three years after he sought permission for voluntary retirement, cannot now seek a declaration that he has voluntarily retired from wpc:33031 of 20087 2 service with effect from 25.7.2005. From the materials on record it is evident that the attempt now made by the petitioner is only to get over the disciplinary proceedings. The writ petition is in my opinion misconceived and without merit. It accordingly fails and is dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE bps