M A NASEER, DETECTIVE INSPECTOR Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE; E DIVAKARAN, SUPERINTENDENT OF; DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE; REJI KUMAR, UPPER DIVISION CLERK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the writ petitioner. The disciplinary authority, the first respondent herein, decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him by Ext.P17 order dated 21.7.2009, apparently, based on Ext.P22 report submitted by the District Superintendent of Police, Alappuzha. The gravamen of the allegation against him is that when he was authorised to enquire into a petition against Manjeri Baiju, a notorious criminal, the appellant delayed the enquiry and submitted the report only after 11 months. In the meanwhile, the said criminal was able to get bail. The District Superintendent of Police called upon the appellant by Ext.P15 show cause, why disciplinary action against him should not be recommended. He submitted his explanation. But the District Superintendent of Police was not inclined to allow the matter to rest there. He forwarded Ext.P22 report to the first respondent Inspector General of Police. The said respondent decided to take action against the appellant by Ext.P17 proceedings. Therefore, Exts.P15, P17 and P22 were challenged before the learned Single Judge. Various grounds were taken. But the learned Single Judge took the view that the challenge against those proceedings were premature and dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this Appeal.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the entire action is vitiated by malafides. The person behind the action against him is personally impleaded as the 4th respondent. The disciplinary authority decided to launch the disciplinary action against him without application of mind. That decision was not preceded by any preliminary enquiry, it is submitted.

(3.) During conduct of disciplinary proceedings, the possibility of irregularities or illegalities being committed by the disciplinary authority cannot be ruled out. Every time when the delinquent feels that an irregularity or illegality is committed, he cannot be permitted to rush to this court, invoking the writ jurisdiction of this court. If finally the order is against him, he has remedies like appeal, revision etc. before the statutory authorities. When left with no other remedy under law, the appellant can invoke the constitutional remedy available under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. At this stage, no adverse final order has been passed against the appellant. Therefore, the challenge against the intermediate steps taken by the competent authorities cannot be entertained. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that the writ petition was premature.