IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 2421 of 2007()
1. M.M.RAGHAVAN, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
3. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
4. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.KRB.KAIMAL (SR.)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :18/06/2008
O R D E R
J.B.KOSHY & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ.
--------------------------------------
W.A.No.2421 OF 2007
-------------------------------------
Dated 18th June, 2008
JUDGMENT
Koshy,J.
Appellant/petitioner approached this court for quashing
Exts.P5, P10, P15 and P16 orders issued by the first respondent. In all
those cases, punishments were imposed on the petitioner which were
confirmed in appeals and review petitions. Petitioner has also got a case
that Ext.P6 show cause notice has not been finalised so far. Learned
single Judge in the impugned judgment directed the authorities to
finalise the proceedings within three months. With regard to the orders,
the main contention was that by Ext.P2 order dated 14.9.98 the
punishment was postponement of one increment for two years with
cumulative effect. It was consequently confirmed in appeal and review
petition. Secondly, Ext.P8 order of punishment was also confirmed in
appeal and review. The third disciplinary action reached the stage of
Ext.P6 show cause notice. The fourth disciplinary action ended up in
punishment as per Ext.P11 order dated 12.6.02. It is the contention of
the petitioner that on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in
Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab (1991 Supplement 1 SCC 504)
barring of increment with cumulative effect is a major punishment.
W.A.2421/2007 2
Therefore, proceedings regarding the major punishment ought not
have been issued. The above Supreme Court decision is based on the
rules applicable to Punjab Police, whereas, during the relevant time,
as per the special rules applicable to Kerala Police Department, it was
a minor punishment. Even the Kerala Civil Services Rules were
amended only after show cause notice was issued. In this case where
punishments were imposed, punishment orders were passed before
the special rules were amended and as per the special rules
applicable at the time of taking disciplinary action, it was only minor
punishment and formalities for imposing minor punishment were
complied with. The order was confirmed in appeal and review and no
valid grounds are stated to interfere in the same. We fully agree with
the views of the learned single Judge.
The appeal is dismissed.
J.B.KOSHY
JUDGE
P.N.RAVINDRAN
JUDGE
tks