This order remands the penalty proceedings to the first respondent to decide on the petitioner's case expeditiously, specifically within six weeks, following a proposal for a warning penalty by the second respondent.
First respondent directed to decide on Ext.P4 and finalize proceedings within 6 weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
TUESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2010 / 25TH JYAISTHA 1932
WP(C).No. 15410 of 2010(A)
PETITIONER(S):
ARSHAD. M. KHAN, JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT, SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.T.K.BIJU
RESPONDENT(S):
BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. ARAVINDHKUMAR BABU
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) NO.15410 OF 2010 (A)
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of June, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is a Junior Superintendent in the Regional Transport Office, Iringalakkuda. His grievance is that he has been excluded from Ext.P6 select list. This is apparently for the pendency of Exts.P2 and P3 charge sheets, to which the petitioner had submitted Ext.P4 explanation. Petitioner complains inordinate delay in finalizing the proceeding and including him in the select list.
Government Pleader on instructions submits that considering the reply submitted by the petitioner to Exts.P2 and P3 charge sheets, the 2nd respondent has already addressed the first respondent to take a lenient view in the matter and to close the proceedings by imposing a punishment of warning. It is stated that this proposal was made by the 2nd respondent on 31.3.2010 and the proposal in pending before the first respondent.
Therefore, at this stage, what is required to be done is that the first respondent should take a decision on Ext.P4, in the light of proposal made by the 2nd respondent. This the first respondent
WPC.No. 15410/2010
:2 :
shall do, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 6 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. Necessarily, dependent upon the decision, the petitioner's claim for consideration by the DPC shall also be dealt with.
Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the first respondent for compliance.
vi/
(ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the first respondent should expedite the penalty proceedings and include the petitioner in the select list considering the proposal for a warning.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Arshad. M. Khan
State of Kerala
The Transport Commissioner
The Sub Regional Transport Officer
Anthony Dominic
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
