IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 38543 of 2003(L)
1. V. LIMA GEORGE, RETIRED SUB INSPECTOR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, COCHIN CITY.
... Respondent
2. THE DIG OF POLICE, THRISSUR RANGE.
3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
4. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
5. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
6. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.ARUN PRASANTH
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :12/02/2009
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.38543 OF 2003
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of February, 2009
JUDGMENT
The petitioner joined as a Police Constable in the service of
the Government of Kerala, on 15.3.1970 and was promoted as
Head Constable in 1988. While so, disciplinary proceedings were
initiated against him on certain allegations of misconduct which
resulted in Ext.P6 order dated 13.11.1997 imposing on him the
punishment of reversion as Police Constable for a period of one
year. The petitioner filed an appeal, which resulted in Ext.P10
order, whereby the punishment imposed on the petitioner has
been converted into one of barring of his next increment with
cumulative effect for a period of two years. The petitioner is
aggrieved by Ext.P10 order. The petitioner also raises a
contention that since subsequently by Ext.P1 dated 23.11.1999
the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector, his
reversion should have been to the post of Head Constable and
not as Constable. According to the petitioner, the punishment of
barring of increment is a higher punishment than that of
W.P.(c)No.38543/03 2
reversion for a period of one year. He further submits that it
was after he had undergone the punishment of reversion for
one year that Ext.P10 has been passed and therefore the
barring of increment amounts to double punishment.
2. The learned Government Pleader with the help of a
counter affidavit opposes the contentions. According to her,
by Ext.P10 order, the petitioner’s punishment of reversion has
been reduced to one of barring of increment with cumulative
effect for a period of two years.
3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
4. I do not find any merit in the contention of the
petitioner that he should have been reverted as Head
Constable and not as Police Constable. Ext.P6 order dated
13.11.1997 imposing on the petitioner punishment of reversion
of Constable was at a time when he was Head Constable and it
is only after the punishment was undergone by him, he was
promoted as ASI. That being so, there is no merit in the
contention that he should have been reverted as Head
Constable. If that be accepted, that would mean that the
petitioner would not be visited with any punishment at all.
But in so far as Ext.P10 is concerned, if the petitioner is of
W.P.(c)No.38543/03 3
opinion that rather than the punishment of barring of
increment with cumulative effect for two years, the
punishment of reversion would be more less harmful to his
service, and since in an appeal filed by him without any notice
for enhancement of the punishment, he could not have been
visited with a harsher punishment, I am of opinion that
Ext.P10 is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, Ext.P10 is
quashed and Ext.P6 is restored with consequential benefits.
Orders in this regard shall be passed and consequential
benefits given to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at
any rate, within a period of two months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
Acd
W.P.(c)No.38543/03 4