Disposed

C.Chandran v. Assistant Security Commissioner

Kerala HC17 Oct 2012WP(C)/10663/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a writ petition filed by a Head Constable challenging a charge sheet and seeking to restrain disciplinary proceedings under Rule 153 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, noting that statutory remedies were preferred.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of directing the competent authority to consider the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders affording an opportunity of hearing within four

C.Chandran Vs Assistant Security Commissioner — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/25TH ASWINA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 10663 of 2012 (G)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

C.CHANDRAN, HEAD CONSTABLE, 8400879/KRR RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, KAROOR RESIDING AT MADHALAMKODE HOUSE, ELAPPULLY POST PALAKKAD - 678 622.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.N.NAGARESH SRI.SHAJI THOMAS SRI.BINU PAUL SRI.T.V.VINU

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. ASSISTANT SECURITY COMMISSIONER, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, SALEM - 636 001. 2. CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CHENNAI - 600 001. 3. ANIL J, INSPECTOR, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE AND ENQUIRY OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, ERODE - 638 001.

¶11

R1 AND R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.S.DIAS,SC, RAILWAYS

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C).No.10663 of 2012

¶14

APPENDIX

¶15

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶16

EXT.P1:	PHOTOCOPY OF THE FIR DATED 1.1.2012 IN CRIME NO.7 OF 2012 OF KASABE POLICE STATION.
EXT.P2:	COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4.1.2012 OF THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALAKKAD RURAL.
EXT.P3:	COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER NO.SA/XP.227/SUSPENSION/CC/2012 DATED 2.1.2012 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P4:	COPY OF THE MEDICAL REPORT DATED 1.1.2012 ISSUED FROM THE DISTRICT HOSPITAL AND SIGNED BY DR.ANITHA PONNUKUTTY.
EXT.P5:	COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET NO.SA/XP.227/R.153/CC/KRR/1/12 DATED 14.2.2012 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P6:	COPY OF ORDER IN CRL.M.P.NO.524/2012 DATED 5.3.2012 OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE, PALAKKAD.
EXT.P7:	COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS SHEET DATED 7.3.2012 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.P8:	COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 2.4.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P9:	COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4.4.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶17

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶18

EXT.R1(1):	COPY OF PENALTY ADVICE	ISSUED BY THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY
	& DSC/PGT INCHARGE FOR	DAR MATTERS OF S.A.DIVISION, TO THE
	PETITIONER.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

VPV

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶23

W.P. © No.10663 OF 2012

¶24

Dated this the 17^th October, 2012

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

The petitioner has approached this Court with the following

¶27

prayers:

¶28

“ i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, direction or order and set aside Ext.P5 charge sheet dated 14.02.2012 issued by the 1^st respondent.

¶29

ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order commanding the respondents not to proceed against the petitioner under Rule 153 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, till the culmination of criminal proceedings under Ext.P1;

¶30

iii) to declare that Rule 152 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 enabling the respondents to impose penalty on members of the Force without serving a copy of Enquiry Report and hearing them, is illegal and unconstitutional; And

¶31

iv. Issue such other appropriate writ,

¶32

¶33

¶34

direction or order this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶35

The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 submits, with reference to the counter affidavit filed before this Court, that proceedings have been finalised and Ext.R1 order has been passed on 08.08.2012 whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service. Being aggrieved of the same, the petitioner has availed statutory remedy by filing appeal before the competent authority and that the matter is pending.

¶36

After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the prayers sought for by the petitioner to intercept Ext.P5 charge sheet and to restrain the respondents from proceeding against the petitioner in tune with Rule 153 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, are not liable to be entertained in view of the subsequent turn of events.

¶37

The writ petition is disposed of, directing the competent authority, before whom the petitioner has preferred statutory appeal (stated as filed on 28.08.2012), to consider the same

¶38

¶39

¶40

and pass appropriate orders, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at the earliest, at any rate, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The position shall be brought to the notice of the competent authority by respondents 1 and 2.

¶41

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶42

C.Chandran v. Assistant Security Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Chandran v. Assistant Security Commissioner

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

Sulaikha P.A. Vs State of Kerala

Surendran P.A Vs M/S. Iti Limited

Manager, Auzillium School, Varakkad, Vs State

Sivasankaran.P. Vs K. Chandran

Intelligence Officer(Ib) Vs B.a.Shanavas

M.K.Raveendran Vs Guruvayoor Devaswom