IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP No. 19723 of 1999(W)
1. Y2K.RADHAKRISHNAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE PRINCIPAL SECY.DEPT. OF HOME AFFAIRS
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.A.X.VARGHESE
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :12/03/2008
O R D E R
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
----------------------
O.P. No. 19723 of 1999
------------------------------------
Dated, this the 12th day of March, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Aggrieved by Exts.P1, P2 & P5 orders, which concern the
punishment imposed on the petitioner after a due enquiry under the
relevant Rules, the petitioner has filed this original petition.
2. The petitioner, while working as Head Constable in the
Fort Kochi Police Station, was issued with a memo of charges
alleging certain misconduct on his part. The misconduct alleged is
that he was involved in gambling (named as `Pannimalath’) along
with 14 other persons in a building at Fort Kochi beyond
Kunnumpuram-Njaliparamb Road. In the disciplinary enquiry, he
was found guilty. As per order dated 07/06/1989, the disciplinary
authority imposed the punishment of reduction of the petitioner’s
place in the seniority list below 100 persons immediately junior to
him and also limited the salary and all other allowances to the
subsistence allowances paid during the period of suspension from
21/07/1985 to 29/02/1988.
3. In the appeal filed by the petitioner, the punishment was
modified by the appellate authority, as is evident from Ext.P1. After
O.P.NO. 19723/1999
-2-
taking a liberal view, the punishment was modified to barring of
annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect.
The petitioner again challenged the same before the Government
and by Ext.P2 order, the same was rejected. A reading of Ext.P2
order shows that the entire matter was considered on merits.
Thereafter, the petitioner again approached the Government by a
fresh representation, marked as Ext.P3 here, which was rejected as
per Ext.P5 produced along with C.M.P.No.46690/2000.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised various
arguments while challenging the above proceedings. It is pointed
out that he was acquitted in a criminal case and therefore on that
ground itself the punishment should have been set aside by the
appellate authority. It is also pointed out that he was under
suspension for a continuously long period and the punishment had
resulted in acute hardship to him.
5. The fact that he was acquitted in a criminal case will not
absolve him from facing the disciplinary proceedings. The nature
and scope of the two are totally different. Therefore, these
contentions raised cannot be accepted. Further the acquittal was
only on technicalities and not on the merits. As regards the conduct
O.P.NO. 19723/1999
-3-
of the disciplinary enquiry, the petitioner has not pointed out any
violation of principles of natural justice, which has the effect of
vitiating the enquiry itself. Therefore, the enquiry and the
consequent proceedings have to be held as valid.
6. Further question is whether the punishment imposed is
disproportionate to the charges or not. In fact, the appellate
authority has modified the punishment after taking a liberal view.
The charges raised against the petitioner is that he was engaged in
gambling along with another 14 persons and has violated the
relevant Rules and has indulged in serious dereliction of duty. It
cannot be a matter of dispute that the charges have been proved.
Being a member of the police force, the petitioner was expected to
behave himself as a model officer before the public at large and by
indulging in gambling he has violated the rules of conduct. In that
view of the matter, it cannot be said that the punishment imposed
and later modified by the appellate authority is totally
disproportionate to the charges. In Ext.P2, the Government also
considered the contentions in detail and found that there are no
grounds to interfere with the punishment. It was also found that
the acquittal was only on technical grounds and it is not a case
O.P.NO. 19723/1999
-4-
where on the merits the petitioner was found not guilty. Therefore,
there was no impediment for proceeding with the disciplinary
enquiry.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that
while passing Ext.P5 the Government has not considered any of the
contentions in detail. The petitioner had availed the remedy of
appeal before the appellate authority and thereafter had moved the
Government also, which resulted in Ext.P2 order. The petition
Ext.P3 is not under any specific provisions of the Rules. The
Government has already exercised the powers under Rule 36A of
the Kerala Police Departmental Enquiries, Punishments and Appeal
Rules 1958. Even going by Rule 36C, there can be only one review.
For all these reasons, it cannot be said that the Government went
wrong in passing an order like Ext.P5. Hence, I see no ground to
interfere with the orders impugned. The original petition is,
therefore, dismissed. No costs.
(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.)
jg