IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 28TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 3251 of 2011(F) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- P.P.ABDUL SALAM, SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SMT.POOJA SURENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN- 695 001 2. THE DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE FOR PREPARING THE SELECT LIST FOR FILLING UP THE POST OF JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,REP.BY ITS CONVENOR,SECRETARY TO GOVT.,TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 001 3. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANANTHAPURAM.PIN- 695 001 R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SANDESH RAJA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(Civil) No.3251 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of February, 2011 Judgment The petitioner is a Senior Superintendent in the Regional Transport Office, Palakkad. According to the petitioner, he is eligible for inclusion in the select list for promotion to the post of Joint Regional Transport Officer. But on the ground that Ext.P3 memo of charges has been issued to the petitioner, he is not being so considered. Petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs: “1. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner for inclusion in the Select List for promotion to the post of Joint Regional Transport Officer in accordance with Rule 28(b)(i)(7) Note (i) of the K S & SSR. 2. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the 1st respondent to forthwith pass orders on Ext.P3 memo of charges after considering Ext.P5 reply. 3. Issue a writ or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for the records leading to Ext.P3 and quashing the same.” 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. Learned Government Pleader would submit that the respondents would require at least six months time to complete the WPC 3251/2011 2 disciplinary proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3 memo of charges in so far as several other persons are also being proceeded against in respect of the same subject matter. 3. I am of the opinion that having initiated the proceedings, the respondents should complete the proceedings expeditiously. At the same time, when a procedure is prescribed by Rule 28(b) (i)(7) Note (i) of the K S & S S R, for considering cases of persons against whom disciplinary proceedings are pending, the respondents should follow that Rule in the matter of considering the petitioner for promotion. In fact, I note that in many cases coming up before me the said Rule is not being followed at all. I am of the opinion that the Government would do well to see that the D.P.Cs. follow the said Rule for considering cases of promotion of persons against whom disciplinary proceedings are pending. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: Respondents 1 and 3 shall see that disciplinary proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3 against the petitioner shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In the meanwhile, the WPC 3251/2011 3 case of the petitioner for promotion as Joint Regional Transport Officer shall be considered by the 2nd respondent in accordance with Rule 28(b)(i)(7) Note (i) of the K S & S S R, whenever the inclusion of eligible persons in the select list are being considered. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE. srd WPC 3251/2011 4