PUSHKARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a Police Constable. It was alleged that on 20.7.1989, while on sentry duty from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m., the petitioner hired an autorickshaw driven by one Shaji and reached Vattekkadu, from where he seized some spurious liquor possessed by one Subran and that Subran was released without registering any case. There was an enquiry ordered by the Superintendent of Police, Trichur. Based on the enquiry report, Ext. P2 order was passed imposing punishment of withdrawing two increments with cumulative effect. It is the legality and propriety of the said proceeding that is under challenge in this Original Petition.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the punishment imposed herein is really punishment of reduction to a lower rank and that as such the procedure for imposing major penalties should have been followed. Yet another argument was that the enquiry was defective in so far as statements recorded from the witnesses during preliminary enquiry were relied on. It is argued that this was done in such a way that the delinquent officer did not get an opportunity to understand what exactly was the purport of the statement given by different witnesses at the preliminary enquiry. Lastly, it is argued that after the findings were received, there was no opportunity to the petitioner to show cause against the proposed punishment.

(3.) The enquiry in question is governed by the provisions of the Kerala Police Departmental Inquiries, Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1958. R.15 of the said Rules provides for different types of penalties under classification (a) to (j). Withholding of increments comes under Clause (g). It is clause (j) that provides for reduction to lower rank in the seniority list or to a lower post or time - scale. A perusal of Ext. P2 order shows that what was imposed in the present case was only withholding of increments with cumulative effect and that there was no punishment of reduction to lower rank imposed in the present case. It may be that the consequence of the punishment imposed in this case would be to deprive the petitioner of some monetary benefit and reduction in rank also might have the impact of adverse monetary impact. That does not mean that the two punishments are identical or even similar. Notwithstanding the punishment, he continues to be in the same rank; the only adverse effect being the non receipt of increments which would otherwise have been possible. The argument of the learned counsel that the two punishments were identical has therefore to be rejected. It necessarily follows that the procedure prescribed in R.17(1)(b), which applies only to imposition of major penalties, is inapplicable in the present case. Of course, reduction in rank which is a punishment under R.15(1)(j) comes within the scope of R.17(1)(b); but as already mentioned, the punishment imposed in the present case is not under sub-r. (1)(j) but under sub-r. (1)(g) only. In the circumstances, the contention that there was defective procedure followed in the present case has to fail.