IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 30085 of 2006(F)
1. M.I.BABY, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
3. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.K.DENESAN
Dated :21/12/2006
O R D E R
K.K. DENESAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P(C) No.30085 OF 2006
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 21st December, 2006
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is a Sub Inspector of Police in the
General Executive Wing of the Police Department.
Respondent No:3 passed Ext.P1 order dated 22.6.2001 to
hold non-oral enquiry into certain allegations
constituting dereliction of duty and misconduct against
the petitioner. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Crime Detachment, Palakkad issued Ext.P2 memo of
charges directing the petitioner to submit his
explanation. The gist of the allegation against the
petitioner was that he failed to conduct investigation
into Crime Nos: 168/96, 180/96 and 183/96 of
Kozhinjampara Police Station and that he had falsely
recorded in the FIRs index that the above cases had
been charge sheeted and that the above conduct of the
petitioner resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
2. Since no explanation was received from the
petitioner, the Deputy Superintendent of Police drew
up the punishment roll minutes on 31.10.2001 finding
the petitioner guilty of the charges. The third
WPC No. 30085 /2006 2
respondent accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer
and awarded the penalty of postponement of his next
increment for six months without cumulative effect,
vide Ext.P3 order dated 28.1.2002. Ext.P3(a) is the
copy of the punishment roll minutes.
3. Against Ext.P3 the petitioner preferred appeal
dated 10.4.2002 before the second respondent. As per
Ext.P5 the appeal was dismissed. The petitioner filed
a review petition before the Government. As per Ext.P6
order dated 22.10.2005 the review petition has been
rejected. Thereafter the petitioner has filed Ext.P7
petition before the Government. The petitioner says
that no orders have been passed on Ext.P7.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
The fact that the petitioner did not submit his defence
statement within the time permitted is a pertinent
point that would weaken the contentions of the
petitioner. Though it is stated that he had made an
application for the supply of certain documents for the
purpose of submitting the written statement of defence,
the petitioner has not produced any material to
substantiate the above contention. The enquiring
WPC No. 30085 /2006 3
authority or for that matter the disciplinary authority
cannot be found fault with for not supplying relevant
documents to the delinquent employee unless he lodges,
promptly, a request in that behalf before the enquiring
authority or the disciplinary authority. There is
nothing to show that any of them had received any such
request from the petitioner. It appears that he was
not all diligent in alerting the officers to supply him
the documents in time. He did not request for
extension of time fixed for the submission of his
written statement of defence.
5. The proceedings initiated against the
petitioner is one for the imposition of a minor
penalty. Hence no question of examining witnesses or
proving documents arises. The disciplinary authority
is entitled to look into the materials on record
including the written statement of defence if any,
available on record and to finalise the disciplinary
proceedings accordingly. Since the petitioner did not
take care to file the written statement within the time
stipulated or make any request to grant additional
time for filing the written statement, the only course
WPC No. 30085 /2006 4
open to the enquiry officer was to draw the report of
enquiry based on the materials available on record.
6. The contention of the petitioner that the
charge was framed by the Deputy Superintendent of
Police and not by the D.I.G and the same would vitiate
the disciplinary proceedings is without any merit. The
enquiring authority is also empowered to frame charges.
The order imposing penalty on the petitioner has been
passed by the D.I.G who is the disciplinary authority
competent to pass such orders. The review petition has
been rightly rejected by the Government. There is no
provision for filing one more review petition before
the Government. Hence the petitioner cannot have any
legitimate grievance in not considering Ext.P7
representation.
7. Ex.P3(a) report shows that the petitioner was
found guilty based on cogent and reliable materials.
Hence, no interference is called for. The penalty
imposed is minor and not at all excessive. There is no
substance in the contention of the petitioner that the
impugned orders would result in a miscarriage of
justice. I am not able to appreciate such a contention
WPC No. 30085 /2006 5
coming from the side of an officer who was not
diligent, if not indifferent, in defending his case
before the disciplinary authority. The writ petition
fails and is dismissed.
K.K. DENESAN
JUDGE
jan/