High Court Kerala High Court

K.J.Johnson vs The State Of Kerala on 16 December, 2009

Kerala High Court
K.J.Johnson vs The State Of Kerala on 16 December, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 27638 of 2009(Y)


1. K.J.JOHNSON,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,

3. THE COMMANDANT,

4. THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.AJAY

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :16/12/2009

 O R D E R
                        ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                   -------------------------
                   W.P.(C.) No.27638 of 2009 (Y)
             ---------------------------------
           Dated, this the 16th day of December, 2009

                           J U D G M E N T

Challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P4 order dated

22/05/2009 placing the petitioner under suspension. The

petitioner also seeks to quash Ext.P6 order dated 16/07/2009

directing that an oral enquiry be conducted against the persons

mentioned therein including the petitioner.

2. It is submitted that during pendency of this writ petition,

the petitioner has since been reinstated in service. Therefore, as at

present challenge against Ext.P4 does not survive for consideration.

3. In so far as Ext.P6 is concerned, when the allegations of

misconduct are disclosed, it is always open to the disciplinary

authority to initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings. This

precisely is what is done by Ext.P6. The petitioner cannot therefore

challenge Ext.P6.

4. However, I find merit in the contention of the petitioner

that even though in Ext.P6 the enquiry was ordered to be completed

WP(C) No.27638/2009
-2-

within two months, there has not been any progress in the matter,

and hence an order should be issued requiring the 3rd respondent to

complete the proceedings within a time frame.

5. I heard the learned Government Pleader also.

A reading of Ext.P6 order shows that the enquiry was ordered

to be completed within two months. If no appreciable progress has

been made, the 3rd respondent is bound to expedite and finalise the

proceedings. In view of the above, I dispose of the writ petition

directing the 3rd respondent to complete the proceedings as ordered

in Ext.P6 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three

months of production of a copy of this judgment.

This writ petition is disposed of as above.

(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg