IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 33031 of 2008(G)
1. K.S.RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI, AGED 50 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REORESEBTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :26/11/2008
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J
-----------------------------
W.P.(C) NO: 33031 of 2008
-----------------------------
Dated this 26th day of November, 2008
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is presently working as Police Constable. He had
applied for voluntary retirement from service with effect from 25.7.2005
as per application submitted on 24.4.2005. The said request was not
granted. The petitioner continued in service even after 25.7.2005.
Later, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and Ext.P4
memo of charges dated 29-8-2008 was served on him by the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, District Special Branch, Pathanamthitta. In this
writ petition the petitioner challenges Ext.P4 and prays for a declaration
that he has retired from service with effect from 25.7.2005.
2. The petitioner applied for voluntary retirement on 25.7.2005.
He claims that on the expiry of the notice period of three months as
orders were not passed declining his request, he should be deemed to
have retired from service on the notified date. The pleadings disclose
that the petitioner did not seek such a declaration, till disciplinary
action was initiated against him and Ext.P4 memo of charges was issued
in August 2008. It is evident from the conduct of the petitioner that he
has filed this writ petition with a view to get over the disciplinary action
initiated against him as per Ext.P4. The petitioner who kept quite for
nearly three years after he sought permission for voluntary retirement,
cannot now seek a declaration that he has voluntarily retired from
wpc:33031 of 20087
2
service with effect from 25.7.2005. From the materials on record it is
evident that the attempt now made by the petitioner is only to get over
the disciplinary proceedings. The writ petition is in my opinion
misconceived and without merit. It accordingly fails and is dismissed.
P.N.RAVINDRAN,
JUDGE
bps