IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 30753 of 2006(J)
1. M.I.BABY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
3. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.K.DENESAN
Dated :27/11/2006
O R D E R
K.K. DENESAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C) No. 30753 OF 2006 J
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 27th November, 2006
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is a Sub Inspector of Police in the
General Executive Wing of the Police Department. While
working as Sub Inspector in the Kochi City Police
Control Room, he was served with Ext. P1 memo of
charges with the statement of allegations stating that
he gave incorrect information about the receipt of
orders which directed him to remit Rs.2190.40 in the
treasury and thereby misled the higher authorities.
The disciplinary authority ordered non-oral enquiry
into the charges and appointed an enquiry officer to
look into the materials and drew up the enquiry report.
On the basis of the enquiry report holding that the
petitioner was guilty of the charges, the 3rd respondent
passed Ext. P2 order imposing on the petitioner the
penalty of withholding one increment without cumulative
effect. The statutory appeal filed by the petitioner
before the 2nd respondent was dismissed as per Ext. P4
order. The petitioner preferred a review petition
before the Government. As per Ext. P6 the review
WPC No.30753 /2006 -2-
petition was rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner
filed a mercy petition but that also was rejected vide
Ext. P7 passed on 11-7-2006. Feeling aggrieved, this
writ petition has been filed challenging Exts. P2, P4,
P6 and P7.
2. It is contended that the impugned orders are
unsustainable mainly on the ground that the petitioner
was not afforded reasonable opportunity to defend the
charges. According to him, he had submitted an
application for permission to take extracts from the
relevant records; but before allowing that request
Ext. P2 order was passed finding him guilty of the
charges.
3. On going through the impugned orders it is seen
that the above contention of the petitioner is devoid
of merit. The petitioner was specifically informed as
per Ext. P1 that he should submit his written statement
of defence within 15 days from the date of receipt of
the charge memo. But the petitioner did not file his
written statement of defence. He did not make any
request for extension of the time granted for filing
the written statement of defence. Therefore, after the
WPC No.30753 /2006 -3-
expiry of the period stipulated in the charge memo for
receipt of the written statement of defence, the
enquiring authority, after going through the materials
on record, filed his report. The disciplinary
authority considered the report and passed Ext. P2
order finding the petitioner guilty of the charges.
4. The fact that the petitioner failed to submit
his written statement of defence in reply to the memo
of charge is not in dispute. The excuse put forward by
him that he was waiting for a reply from the
disciplinary authority in response to his request for
perusal of records is not convincing. No material has
been placed by the petitioner to show that he made any
such request before the disciplinary authority. Even
assuming that he had made any such request, he was
expected to apply for extension of time to file his
written statement of defence pending consideration of
his request. In the above circumstances, neither the
enquiring authority nor the disciplinary authority can
be found fault with for passing an order in the nature
of Ext. P2 based on the materials available on record.
5. The allegations made against the petitioner are
WPC No.30753 /2006 -4-
such that the truth or correctness of the same can be
ascertained by proper examination of the records. The
explanation submitted by the petitioner in the form of
an appeal memorandum before the 2nd respondent was found
not satisfactory. The 1st respondent-Government has
considered in detail the contentions of the petitioner
and has passed a speaking order. The minor penalty of
withholding one increment is neither excessive nor
disproportionate to the charges proved against the
petitioner.
6. I find no grounds to interfere with the
impugned orders. The writ petition is, therefore,
dismissed.
K.K. DENESAN
JUDGE
jan/