IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 29417 of 2009(V)
1. DANIAL DEVARAJ, DENNIS VILLA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY
... Respondent
2. THE COMMANDANT GENERAL,
3. THE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :19/10/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C.) No.29417 of 2009
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 19th day of October, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is working as a Station Officer at the Fire and
Rescue Station, Varkala. While the petitioner was working at
Vadakkancherry, disciplinary action was initiated against the
petitioner, on the allegation that in collusion with another colleague,
he had given certain equipments on rent. Ext.P4 is the enquiry
report, on the basis of which he was imposed a punishment of
barring of 3 increments with cumulative effect. It would appear that
in the appeal, the period of suspension was ordered to be treated as
joining time. He filed Ext.P6 before the 1st respondent, that resulted
in Ext.P8 order dated 26/03/2009, where it was ordered that the
punishment imposed, i.e. barring of three increments, shall be
without cumulative effect. Subsequently, in Ext.P9 select list
prepared for the post of Assistant Divisional Officer, the petitioner
was not included, and still later, he filed Ext.P10 representation
seeking his inclusion in the list as well. In the writ petition, he
WP(C) No.29417/2009
-2-
challenges Ext.P8 and also seeks a direction for consideration of
Ext.P10 representation.
2. In so far as Ext.P8 is concerned, having regard to the fact
that the misconduct stands proved in Ext.P4 enquiry report, I cannot
find fault with the respondents in having imposed a punishment of
barring of three increments and that too without cumulative effect.
This Court will be justified in interfering with an order of
punishment imposed by a disciplinary authority, only if the
punishment is disproportionate to the misconduct proved or is one
shocking the conscience of this Court. Having regard to the facts, I
am not inclined to think that the punishment imposed on the
petitioner is one satisfying any of these conditions. If that be so,
the challenge against Ext.P8 should fail.
3. However, the petitioner submits that since the period of
punishment has expired, he should have been considered for
inclusion in the select list. This essentially is a matter for the 2nd
respondent to consider. Since the petitioner has already moved the
2nd respondent by filing Ext.P10, I direct the 2nd respondent to
consider and pass orders on Ext.P10 as expeditiously as possible, at
WP(C) No.29417/2009
-3-
any rate, within four weeks of production of a copy of this
judgment, along with a copy of this writ petition.
This writ petition is disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg