High Court Kerala High Court

Arshad. M. Khan vs State Of Kerala on 15 June, 2010

Kerala High Court
Arshad. M. Khan vs State Of Kerala on 15 June, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 15410 of 2010(A)


1. ARSHAD. M. KHAN, JUNIOR
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



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

2. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,

3. THE SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :15/06/2010

 O R D E R
                       ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
              --------------------------------------------------
                 W.P.(C) NO.15410 OF 2010 (A)
              --------------------------------------------------
             Dated this the 15th day of June, 2010

                           J U D G M E N T

Petitioner is a Junior Superintendent in the Regional Transport

Office, Iringalakkuda. His grievance is that he has been excluded

from Ext.P6 select list. This is apparently for the pendency of

Exts.P2 and P3 charge sheets, to which the petitioner had submitted

Ext.P4 explanation. Petitioner complains inordinate delay in

finalizing the proceeding and including him in the select list.

Government Pleader on instructions submits that considering

the reply submitted by the petitioner to Exts.P2 and P3 charge

sheets, the 2nd respondent has already addressed the first

respondent to take a lenient view in the matter and to close the

proceedings by imposing a punishment of warning. It is stated that

this proposal was made by the 2nd respondent on 31.3.2010 and

the proposal in pending before the first respondent.

Therefore, at this stage, what is required to be done is that

the first respondent should take a decision on Ext.P4, in the light of

proposal made by the 2nd respondent. This the first respondent

WPC.No. 15410/2010
:2 :

shall do, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 6 weeks

from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. Necessarily,

dependent upon the decision, the petitioner’s claim for

consideration by the DPC shall also be dealt with.

Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a

copy of the writ petition before the first respondent for compliance.

(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/