IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 12914 of 2007(K)
1. P.C.CHERIYAN, S/O.VARKEY CHERIAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DISTRICT POLICE SUPERINTENDENT,
... Respondent
2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM.
3. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
4. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
5. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM (SR.)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :01/02/2011
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
-----------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.12914 OF 2007
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of February, 2011
JUDGMENT
The petitioner was a Police Constable in the Police
Department of the Government of Kerala. On certain allegations
of misconduct, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against
him. An enquiry was conducted. The petitioner was found guilty
of the charges against him and was dismissed from service as a
punishment, by order dated 27.1.2007. The petitioner has filed
this writ petition contending that the petitioner was due to retire
on 31.1.2007 and therefore, Ext.P3 dismissal order issued to him
on 27.1.2007 is malafide and because of the ill-feeling towards
the petitioner by the superior officer. The petitioner, therefore,
seeks the following reliefs:
“a) call for the records connected with the case;
b) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate
writ, order or direction directing the respondent to
allow the pensionary benefits to the petitioner”
2. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit
justifying the action. It is further submitted that there were 13
W.P.(C)No.12914/07 2
proceedings against the petitioner and he does not deserve
any leniency in the matter. The petitioner has filed a reply
affidavit stating that the petitioner had not been found guilty of
any charges in the other proceedings.
3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
The petitioner has not chosen to seek any reliefs against the
disciplinary proceedings. He has not challenged Ext.P3 order
of dismissal or the order in an appeal. All what the petitioner
seeks, is a direction to the respondent to grant pensionary
benefits to the petitioner. It is settled law that a person, who
has been dismissed from service, on being found guilty of
serious misconducts, is not entitled to retirement benefits. The
charges found against the petitioner are also very serious in
nature, which cannot be condoned in a police force.
In the above circumstances, there is no merit in this writ
petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
acd
W.P.(C)No.12914/07 3
W.P.(C)No.12914/07 4