IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2010 / 24TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 21962 of 2010(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- T.RAMESAN,TUG MASTER GRADE-III,PORT OFFICE, BEYPORE, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.V.E.ABDUL GAFOOR SRI.A.MOHAMMED SAVAD RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. DIRECTOR OF PORTS, MUSEUM JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. * 2. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF PORT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. *(THE ADDRESS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN CAUSE TITLE IS CORRECTED AS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FISHERIES AND PORTS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AS PER ORDER IN IA NO.9674/2010 DATED 15/7/2010) 3. PORT OFFICER, KOZHIKODE. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 21962 OF 2010 (U) ===================== Dated this the 15th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner's grievance is against Ext.P3 order issued by the Director of Ports, the 1st respondent imposing a punishment of barring of one increment and thus finalising the disciplinary proceedings. Against this order, he has filed Exts.P4 and P5 representations requesting for setting aside the punishment and seeks and order for its disposal. 2. However in terms of the Special Rules, if the petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P3 order, the remedy is to prefer an appeal, which has to be before the 2nd respondent. Since neither Ext.P4 nor Ext.P5 are addressed to the 2nd respondent, the prayer of the petitioner for disposal of Exts.P4 and P5 cannot be granted. 3. Be that as it may, it is clarified that it will still be open to the petitioner to seek his appellate remedies against Ext.P3, in which event, the same will be dealt with in accordance with law. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp