DEVARAJ Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is working as a Detective Inspector in the Crime Branch CID, Kozhikode. While the petitioner was working as Circle Inspector of Police, Sulthan Bathery disciplinary action was initiated against him as per Ext.P2 Memo of Charges. During its pendency, the DPC (Departmental Promotion Committee) (Higher) met on 19.2.2006 for preparing the select list of Circle Inspectors fit for promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Police, for the year 2005 for the anticipated vacancies in the year 2006. Admittedly, it is the pendency of the said disciplinary proceedings initiated for imposition of a major penalty as per Ext.P2 that resulted in the non-inclusion of the petitioner in the said select list for the year 2005.

(2.) Admittedly, said disciplinary action initiated as per Ext.P2 culminated in imposition of barring of one increment for two years with cumulative effect. Ext.P9 is the said order of the disciplinary authority. Though an appeal was preferred against Ext.P9 it was rejected as per Ext.R1(a) dated 12.10.2009 on the ground of delay. The contention of the petitioner is that as per Rule 15(1)(g) of the Kerala Police Departmental Inquiries, Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1958, hereinafter referred for brevity 'KPDIP & A Rules' only, the said penalty imposed on the petitioner is only a minor penalty. But in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the stand taken by them is that the penalty imposed on the petitioner viz., barring of one increment for two years with cumulative effect is a major penalty. It is based on such assumption that the petitioner's case was not reviewed though an Ad-hoc DPC(Higher) considered his claim for inclusion in the said list for the year 2005. The said ad-hoc DPC was met on 5.5.09 and as is obvious from Ext.R1(a) it was issued subsequent to the said ad-hoc DPC. The respondents must have reached into such a conclusion that the penalty imposed on the petitioner is a major penalty presumably on account of the fact that withholding of increments with cumulative effect was brought under major penalties as per amendment to Rule 11(1) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960 by inserting item (VA) by GO.(P)No. 28/2002/P&ARD dated 16.5.2002 published as per S.R.O No. 409/2002 in Kerala Gazette Extraordinary No. 72 dated 27.5.2002. The relevant provision in this case viz., Rule 15(1)(g) of the KPDIP & A Rules, is worthy to be extracted in the context of the said rival contentions and the same reads thus:

(3.) To ascertain the nature of the said penalty KPDIP & A Rules especially Rule 17, have to be looked into. The major penalties are classified under Rule 15(1)(i), (j), (k), (l) and (m). Obviously, still Rule 15(1)(g) is not brought under that classification and hence withholding of increments with or without any hedge under the KPDIP & A Rules can still be construed only as a minor penalty. I am fortified in my view by a Division Bench of this Court reported in State of Kerala v. T.M. Ranganathan,1997 (2) KarLJ 239.