IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 2428 of 2011(C)
1. LEENA DANIEL, SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,
3. THE DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE
For Petitioner :SRI.N.SUGATHAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :10/02/2011
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W.P(C) No. 2428 of 2011
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 10th day of February, 2011.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is facing some disciplinary proceedings. The
same were initiated in 2009 by issuing Ext. P4 memo of charges on
31.12.2009. Because of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings,
the petitioner is not being considered for promotion to the post of
Joint Regional Transport Officer. At the same time, her juniors are
being considered. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner
has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:
“i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or
order directing the 1st respondent to finalise the disciplinary
proceedings initiated against the petitioner as per Ext. P4
memo of charges dated 31.12.2009 at once.
ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or
order directing the 3rd respondent to consider the claim of
the petitioner for inclusion in the select list for promotion to
the cadre of Joint Regional Transport Officer in the next
meeting of the DPC (Higher) to be convened for preparation
of the select list for promotion to that cadre for the year
2011 and to included her name in the select list,
notwithstanding the pendency of the disciplinary
proceedings;
iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or
order directing the 1st respondent to promote the petitioner
to the cadre of Joint Regional Transport Officer before any of
her juniors in the category of Senior Superintendent/Junior
Accounts officer is promoted to that cadre.”
2. I specifically directed the learned Government Pleader to get
instructions as to within what time the disciplinary proceedings
against the petitioner can be finalised. The learned Government
Pleader submits that since along with the petitioner disciplinary
proceedings have to be taken against others also, the respondents
would require at least 6 months’ time to complete the disciplinary
W.P(C) No. 2428/2011 -: 2 :-
proceedings.
I am of opinion that having issued charge memo as early as
on 31.12.2009, the respondents should complete the disciplinary
proceedings at least within 4 months. Accordingly, this writ
petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to
see that the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner are
completed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In
the meanwhile, the Departmental Promotion Committee shall
consider the case of the petitioner also for selection for
promotion in accordance with Note (i) under sub-clause (7) of
Rule 28(b)(i) of the K.S and S.S.R.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/
[TRUE COPY]
P.S TO JUDGE.