IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 34536 of 2006(J)
1. SRI.G.BOVAS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SURVEY DIRECTOR,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.BABU KUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.K.DENESAN
Dated :15/02/2007
O R D E R
K.K.DENESAN, J
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)NO. 34536 of 2006
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of February, 2007
JUDGMENT
The petitioner retired 8 years ago from the post of Resurvey
Superintendent. It is alleged that about 10 years ago, one
Kuriakose assaulted him and he made a complaint before the
police. Pursuant to the complaint lodged simultaneously with the
departmental authorities, disciplinary proceedings were taken
against the above named Kuriakose and one Krishnan alleging
misconduct on their part. They were found guilty in the
disciplinary proceedings and the penalty of barring increment
was inflicted on them. Feeling aggrieved by the order imposing
penalty, they invoked the statutory remedies. Ultimately, the
statutory petition filed by them was disposed of reducing the
penalty of barring of increment to that of censure. The petitioner
says that he feels aggrieved by the order reducing the quantum
of punishment and has got a right to demand that those who had
W.P.(C)No.34536/2006 :2:
alleged to have assaulted him should not get the benefit of a
lenient view taken by the statutory authorities. He has
approached this Court with this writ petition for a direction to
the sole respondent, namely, the Survey Director to dispose of
Exts.P3 and P4 review petitions filed by him.
2. The petitioner has filed copies of two petitions said to
have been filed by him before the police in respect of the very
same incident. However, he does not know what happened to
those petitions. He has not even cared to verify whether a crime
case was registered and what exactly is the result of his lodging
complaints before the police.
3. For two reasons, I am not inclined to allow the prayer
made by the petitioner. Neither Krishnan nor Kuriakose is a
respondent in this writ petition. The effect of allowing the prayer
made in this writ petition will be once again calling upon the
above named persons to face proceedings which have become
final. The respondent has put a quietus to the departmental
proceedings by inflicting on the delinquent Officers, such penalty
which according to the department was found appropriate in the
W.P.(C)No.34536/2006 :3:
circumstances. In the absence of the above named persons, it is
not proper for this court to examine the merits of the
contentions of the petitioner. Hence, for non-impleadment of the
necessary parties, this writ petition must fail. Secondly, in a
matter of this nature, the defacto complainant has no locus
standi to demand that the penalty imposed by the department on
another government servant shall be enhanced. For these two
reasons, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. I do so. The
petitioner will be free to pursue the remedy under the criminal
law in case appropriate action has not been taken on the
petitions said to have been filed by him before the police
authorities.
K.K.DENESAN, JUDGE
css
/
W.P.(C)No.34536/2006 :4: