IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 34538 of 2009(J)
1. S.V.MOHANASUNDARARAJ,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
3. THE CITY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
5. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.R.SARIN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :02/12/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO.34538 OF 2009 (J)
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P5,P6 and P7.
2. On 17.2.1997, while the petitioner was working as
Assistant Sub Inspector of Police of the Control Room,
Thiruvananthpauram, he was placed under suspension on the
allegation that on 12.2.1997, while he was discharging the duty of
Commander in Squad No.8, as the vehicle was not in a running
condition, he was directed to remain in person in the control
room from 9 p.m. on that day. It is stated that he went away from
the control room without informing the duty officer and that on 7
a.m on 13.12.1997, petitioner was found behavied in a disorderly
manner at the KSRTC bus stand, Thampanoor, after consuming
liquor. He was removed to the Hospital and on medical
examination consumption of alcohol was revealed.
3. Charge sheet was issued, enquiry was conducted and
report finding the guilty was submitted, based on which, Ext.P3
show cause notice was issued calling upon the petitioner to show
cause why he shall not be imposed a punishment of reversion. He
WPC.No.34538 /09
:2 :
submitted Ext.P5 reply. The reply was considered and the 3rd
respondent considered Ext.P5 order imposing punishment of
reversion as Head Constable for a period of 3 years. He filed
appeal under Rule 23 of the Kerala Police Department Enquiries
Punishment & Appeal Rules and was dismissed by Ext.P6. Review
filed under Rule 36 was also dismissed by Ext.P7. Thereafter, a
representation for reconsideration was filed and no orders have
been passed. In the meantime petitioner also retired from service
on 28.2.2002. It is in these circumstances writ petition is filed,
with the aforesaid prayers.
4. Admittedly the petitioner was subjected to medical
examination and on medical examination he was found to have
consumed alcohol and was under the influence of alcohol. In the
enquiry conducted, the misconduct alleged was proved and it is
based on the misconduct which was proved in a properly
conducted enquiry that the punishment of reversion for 3 years
was imposed on the petitioner.
5. A reading of Ext.P2 report shows that the Enquiry Officer
has considered the entire matter and it is based on the evidence
that is available that the guilt of the petitioner was found and
WPC.No.34538 /09
:3 :
nothing is made out to hold the findings to be vitiated. In such
circumstances this court will not be justified in re appreciating the
findings of fact fact arrived at by the Enquiry Officer.
6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a
diabetic patient and it was because of the side effects of the
medicine consumed by him that he was found to have
misbehaved. However, no proof in support of this contention has
been produced before either before the Enquiry Officer or
before this court. In such circumstances, I cannot accept the
contention now raised.
Having regard to the gravity of misconduct and also the fact
that the petitioner is an officer belonging to the disciplined forces,
I cannot say that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is
disproportionate to the misconduct that was proved against him.
Writ petition fails and is dismissed.
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/
WPC.No.34538 /09
:4 :