JAYACHANDRAN V. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the applicant in O.A.(EKM) 1842 of 2020 questioning the dismissal of his Original Application filed challenging Annexure-A8 enquiry report/PR Minutes, Annexures -A10 and A12 to the extent the applicant was given the penalty of barring of three increments with cumulative effect in the departmental enquiry initiated as per Annexure - A1 memo of charges. Departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner on the allegation that he while working as Inspector of Police, Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram City, manhandled one K.G. Suresh Babu at 10. 30 p.m on 3/1/2014 and also registered a false case against him. The petitioner denied the charges stating that the car belonging to K.G. Suresh Babu was parked very near to Raj Bhavan on 3/1/2014 when the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India was camping in the Raj Bhavan. Since Sri. Suresh Babu did not bother to answer on being asked as to why the car is being parked there, the petitioner had to arrest and take him to the police station. It is alleged that the Enquiry Officer was biased and had submitted Annexure-A10 report which was accepted by the disciplinary authority who issued Annexure-A7 show cause notice proposing the penalty of reversion of the petitioner to a lower category of Sub Inspector for a period of five years. By Annexure A-10, disciplinary proceedings were finalised by awarding him the penalty of barring of three increments with cumulative effect. Petitioner filed Annexure-A11 statutory review petition before the Government which was rejected by Annexure-A12 order.

(2.) The Tribunal dismissed the Original Application by rejecting the contention of the petitioner that copy of the enquiry report was not furnished to him soon after it was drawn up and the same was given only after a provisional decision was taken to impose a penalty of reduction of rank for a period of five years, by relying on Rule 17 (i) (b) of the Kerala Police Departmental Inquiries, Punishment and Appeal Rules, (KPDIP) and A Rules.

(3.) The contention of the Government that only after the disciplinary authority takes a decision, the copy of the report need to OP (KAT) No. 130 of 2022 be given to the delinquent employee, together with the findings of the disciplinary authority on the enquiry report, was accepted and accordingly holding that there were no grounds to interfere with the orders impugned, the Original Application was dismissed.