IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 22474 of 2010(H)
1. SHANAVAS.S
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.C.A.CHACKO
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :19/07/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
---------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 22474 OF 2010
--------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of July, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is working as an Armed Reserve Sub Inspector
(ARSI). While working at Armed Reserve Camp at Thiruvananthapuram
City, he was issued with Ext.P1 memo of charges. The allegation was
that on 19.3.2007, when along with other police constables, the petitioner
was deputed for money escort duty from Thiruvananthapuram to Kannur,
without permission of the superiors, the petitioner permitted an under trial
and the escorting policemen to travel in the vehicle till Ernakulam. An
enquiry was held and Ext.P2 report shows that he was found guilty.
Thereupon Ext.P3 show cause notice was issued calling upon the
petitioner to show cause why he should not be punished by barring two
increments with cumulative effect. He submitted Ext.P4 explanation.
Ext.P5 is the order passed by the third respondent, disciplinary authority,
confirming the punishment proposed in Ext.P3. Thereupon, the petitioner
filed Ext.P6 appeal to the second respondent and it was rejected by
Ext.P7 order. Ext.P8 review petition filed before the first respondent was
also rejected by Ext.P9 order. These orders are under challenge in this
writ petition.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
the enquiry was held in violation of natural justice and the punishment is
illegal and arbitrary.
WPC No.22474/2010
2
3. However a perusal of Ext.P2, the enquiry report, shows that
the enquiry was conducted with opportunity to the petitioner and in
compliance with the principles of natural justice. The report also shows
that the findings of the enquiry officer is consistent with the evidence
available in the enquiry. In so far as the proportionality of the punishment
is concerned, both the appellate authority and the review authority have
rejected the contentions of the petitioner. Further, while appreciating the
contentions of the petitioner on this aspect, one has to be conscious of the
duty that the petitioner has to discharge and the gravity of the misconduct
that has been committed by him. Admittedly, the petitioner is a Sub
Inspector of Police who was on money escort duty. It was while so that the
petitioner unauthorisedly permitted an under trial to travel in the vehicle.
This is certainly a grave official misconduct, which was proved in an
enquiry and validly held against him. Having regard to the gravity of the
misconduct so proved in the enquiry, I am not persuaded to think that the
punishment of barring of two increments with cumulative effect imposed on
the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate warranting interference in a
proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition fails and is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC
(JUDGE)
vps
WPC No.22474/2010
3
WPC No.22474/2010
4