KRISHNAVENI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a Junior Superintendent under the Transport Department. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner on being aggrieved by the exclusion from Ext.P2 select list of Junior Superintendents fit for promotion to the post of Senior Superintendents/Senior Superintendent (Accounts) for the year 2010. Earlier the petitioner was included in Ext. P1 select list of officers fit for promotion to the post of Senior Superintendent. According to the petitioner she was not included in Ext. P2 select list only on account of pendency of disciplinary proceedings initiated against as per memo of charges dated 27.10.2009. Subsequently, the said disciplinary proceedings were closed with a warning and censure as per Ext. P4. Ext. P4 is dated 25.3.2010. It is obvious from Ext.P2 that the Departmental Promotion Committee had met subsequent to Ext. P4 i.e., on 27.3.2010. In other words, the disciplinary proceedings were not pending against the petitioner as on 27.3.2010 and it had, in fact, culminated in imposition of censure and a warning, as per Ext. P4. Going by Note (v), Rule 28(b)(i)(7) Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules (K.S. & S.S.R.) promotion cannot be withheld on that ground.' In the said circumstances, petitioner has preferred Ext. P5 representation before the second respondent and Ext. P6 revision before the first respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that no steps have been taken on the said representation and revision.

(2.) Indisputably the petitioner was included in Ext. P1 select list. If her non-inclusion in Ext. P2 select list is only on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings or imposition of penalty as per Ext. P4, the same cannot be sustained in the light of provisions under Note (v) to Rule 28(b)(i)(7) Part II of the General Rules in the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules. In fact, the respondents should have conducted a review DPC on receipt of Ext. P5 representation.

(3.) Therefore this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext. P5 representation submitted by the petitioner expeditiously at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment taking into account the fact that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against her culminated only in a warning and censure and the above mentioned provisions viz., Note (v) to Rule 28(b)(i)(7) of Part II of K.S. & S.S.R. Needless to say that necessary follow up actions also have to be taken expeditiously.