Dismissed

Abdul Khader v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Feb 2009WP(C)/5803/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, a police constable challenged the imposition of barring three increments as major punishment, citing lack of representation opportunity. The court dismissed the petition, ruling the punishment proportional to assaulting a colleague and that proved misconduct negates victimisation claims.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed; the punishment orders are upheld.

Abdul Khader Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 17TH MAGHA 1930

¶5

WP(C).No. 5803 of 2005(N)

PETITIONER(S):

ABDUL KHADER S/O.A.AHAMED ALI, HCT.6971, POLICE CONTROL ROOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.BIJI MATHEW SRI.S.BALAKRISHNAN CHETTIAR

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

¶13

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SUNITHA SUKUMAR.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/02/2009, THE COURT, ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 5803/2005.

¶19

EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF ACCIDENT-CUM-WOUOND CERTIFICATE. EXT.P2 ORDER DT. 29-1-1996.

¶20

EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF ENQUIRY REPORT. EXT.P4 ORDER DT. 28-8-1999.

¶21

EXT.P5 APPEAL SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER.

¶22

EXT.P6 ORDER DT. 7-5-2000.

¶23

EXT.P7 REVIEW PETITION DT. 11-7-2000.

¶24

EXT.P8 ORDER DT. 3-4-2004.

[TRUE COPY]

P.S TO JUDGE.

S. Siri Jagan, J.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶29

W. P (C) No. 5803 of 2005

¶30

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶31

Dated this, the 6^th February, 2009.

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

The petitioner is a police constable. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, which resulted in Ext. P4 Punishment Roll, whereby the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of barring of three increments with cumulative effect. Petitioner's appeal against Ext. P4 was rejected by Ext. P6 order and his revision was also dismissed by Ext. P8 order. The petitioner is challenging Exts.P4, P6 and P8 orders in this writ petition.

¶34

The validity of the enquiry proceedings and the findings are no more under challenge before me, as admitted by the petitioner. His only grievance is that barring of three increments with cumulative effect is a major penalty and before imposing that punishment, the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to file a representation against the proposed punishment. In view of the fact that Ext. P4 order was passed as early as on 28-8-99, I am of opinion that even assuming that the petitioner's contention is correct, it would be futile to remand the matter at this distance of time. Therefore, I directed the petitioner to advance arguments on the proportionality of punishment and mitigating circumstances, if any. The only argument the petitioner could raise is that this was victimisation.

¶35

I have considered the contentions of the petitioner.

¶36

The charge proved against the petitioner is that he assaulted a fellow policeman. The findings have been confirmed, the correctness of which the petitioner is no more disputing. The only question is whether for that misconduct the punishment of baring of three increments with cumulative effect is disproportionate. After hearing the petitioner, I am not satisfied that the punishment of three increments with cumulative effect is in any way disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct proved, which includes assault of the

¶37

W.P.C. No. 5803/2005 -: 2 :-

¶38

fellow policeman. It is settled law that proved misconduct is antithesis to victimisation. Therefore, even assuming that the petitioner has not been afforded an opportunity of being heard on the punishment, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶39

Tds/

Abdul Khader v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Khader v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.K.Sasi Vs State of Kerala

T. Nirmala Vs Commissioner, Guruvayur Devaswom

M.a.Kunju Mohammed Vs K.S.R.T.C.

A.Sumesh Kumar Vs Repco Bank (Govt. of India Enterprise)

M/S.Fci Technology Services Ltd. Vs Union of India and 4 Others

Eiemens Imports & Exports Vs Union of India and Others