SHAJI LUKOSE Vs. STATE OF KERALA, DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is a Sub Inspector of Police. While he was working in the Kunnikode Police Station, he was charge sheeted for acts of misconduct alleging that he committed grave dereliction of duty by his indisciplined action of getting drunk while on duty, by not obeying lawful orders of the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Punalur, by not appearing in proper uniform, by not complementing the ASP, tarnishing the reputation of the police in public, by absenting from the duty place and police station and failed to collect intelligence about illicit spirit dealings within the jurisdiction of his police station. An enquiry was conducted and Ext. P3 punishment roll was submitted, in which, the enquiry officer found that the Petitioner is guilty of the misconducts alleged against him. Based on the findings in Ext. P3, by Ext. P5 order, the punishment of barring of three increments with cumulative effect was imposed on the Petitioner. The Petitioner filed an appeal, which was rejected by Ext. P7 order. The Petitioner filed a review petition before the Government. By Ext. P11, the Government reduced the punishment to barring the increment for one year without cumulative effect. The Petitioner is challenging Exts.P3, P5, P7 and P11 orders in this writ petition.

(2.) According to the Petitioner, there was no evidence in the enquiry to prove the guilt of the Petitioner and the order of punishment is arbitrary and unsustainable. He also submits that the appellate and reviewing authorities have not applied their minds while passing Exts.P7 and P11 orders. He points out that in Ext. P11 the Government themselves found that the allegations against the Petitioner were not proved on the basis of documentary evidence, despite which, the Government has only reduced the punishment, instead of absolving the Petitioner from the charges alleged against him.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd Respondent as also the 1st Respondent supporting the impugned orders.