The petitioner challenged departmental orders imposing punishment including salary reduction. The court held the orders were without defect regarding departmental inquiries and interferences. Justified dismissal.
Original Petition dismissed without costs.
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 K.VINOD CHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2016/1ST CHAITHRA, 1938
OP.No. 185 of 1995 (V)
PETITIONER:
P.P. GOVINDAN, S/O. P.K. PAPPAN, CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, C.B., CID SPECIAL SQUAD-I THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 4
BY ADV. SRI.K.L.NARASIMHAN
RESPONDENTS:
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP.No. 185 of 1995 (V)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S APPENDIX
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
JJJ
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
O.P. No. 185 of 1995 (V)
Dated this the 21st day of March, 2016
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is concerned with Ext. P8 order of punishment and Ext.P13 appellate order, confirming the punishment and treating the period of suspension as duty, entitling him only for 80% of the salary for the period.
O.P. No.185/1995
-2-
against the petitioner, on the first count, but found the second charge to be proved. The order passed imposing the punishment and that in appeal is challenged herein.
both the orders and the punishment imposed has been affirmed in appeal, also treating the petitioner as being entitled to 80% of the salary for the period of suspension. The enquiry proved falsification of records. The petitioner's contention is that the first charge of acceptance of bribe having not been proved, the second charge also could not be levelled. There is no merit in such contention, since, even if acceptance of bribe was not proved; the falsification of records could be evidenced. The next contention was that two other officers, booked in the same case, were awarded lesser punishment. The petitioner was the senior most officer
O.P. No.185/1995
-3-
among the three and he was the person who was in charge of the team, as the Circle Inspector. The said ground also cannot be countenanced.
The Original Petition would stand dismissed. No
Costs.
Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE
jjj 21/3/16
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the departmental order imposing punishment of barring increment and reducing salary to 80% during suspension.
P.P. GOVINDAN
STATE OF KERALA
K.VINOD CHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
