JINO K. R. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has instituted the instant O.P. challenging Ext.P1 final verdict rendered on 28/4/2021 by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram Bench in O.A.(TVM) No.1724 of 2017, with the following prayers:

(2.) Petitioner is the applicant in the abovesaid O.A filed before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal challenging Annexures-A7, A9, and A11 orders and seeking for a consequential direction to the respondents therein to treat the period of suspension as duty for all purposes. As per the averments in the original application, the petitioner while working under the 3rd respondent was placed under suspension as per Annexure-A1 order dtd. 5/9/2014, pending enquiry into the allegation that the petitioner on 25/8/2014 misbehaved towards the wife of one of his colleagues over the phone and that he went to the quarters at night when the colleague was not in the station and he ran away from the place when the neighbours saw him and the said act of the petitioner lowered the standard and morale of the Police Academy. A preliminary enquiry was conducted before the issuance of the Annexure-A1 order of suspension and a report was submitted on 4/9/2014. It is alleged that the said preliminary enquiry was conducted behind the back of the petitioner. Thereafter Annexure-A2 memo of charges and a statement of allegation were issued on 21/2/2015. Subsequently Sri.K.K.Aji, DySP (Indoor), Kerala Police Academy was appointed as the enquiry officer to enquire into the allegations against the petitioner. Annexure-A3 reply statement dtd. 24/8/2015 was filed by the petitioner before the enquiry officer. After enquiry, Annexure-A4 report (PR Minutes) dtd. 13/10/2015 was submitted to the 3rd respondent. It is contended that Exts.P1 to P5 statements were recorded at the time of preliminary enquiry without notice to the petitioner. Further, it is contended that the complainant, who is a lady was not examined in the enquiry and therefore, the allegation of misbehavior cannot be said to be proved.

(3.) The Disciplinary authority, after accepting Annexure-A4 enquiry report, tentatively decided to impose a punishment of barring of two increments with cumulative effect, and accordingly Annexure-A5 show cause notice dtd. 21/10/2015 was issued. On 21/10/2015 itself the petitioner was reinstated in service by the 3rd respondent. Petitioner submitted Annexure-A6 detailed written statement dtd. 27/10/2015 in reply to Annexure-A5 show-cause notice. The 3rd respondent, without considering any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in Annexure-A6 reply, finalised the disciplinary proceedings as per Annexure-A7 dtd. 12/11/2015, imposing a punishment of barring of two increments with cumulative and regularized the period of suspension as duty for the limited purpose of pension and gratuity. Aggrieved by Annexure-A7 order, the petitioner had preferred Annexure-A8 appeal dtd. 10/12/2015 before the 2nd respondent. Without considering any of the contentions raised in the appeal filed by the petitioner, the same was dismissed as per Annexure-A9 order dtd. 29/2/2016. Aggrieved by the orders contained in Annexures A7 and A9, the petitioner preferred Annexure-A10 review dtd. 21/6/2016 before the 1st respondent. The Government rejected the said review as per Annexure-A11 order dtd. 29/5/2017. It is aggrieved by the same the petitioner had approached the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram Bench by preferring O.A.(TVM) No.1724 of 2017.