C.P.PRADEEPKUMAR Vs. CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful writ petitioner is the appellant herein. The appellant had joined the service of the 2 nd respondent as Printing Helper in the year 1982. Thereafter, he was promoted as Letter Press Printer in 1993. While working in that post, the appellant was placed under suspension for persistent unauthorised absence, vide Ext P3 order dated 18.3.2004. Thereafter, a disciplinary enquiry was conducted, based on which it was proposed to terminate the appellant from service, as evident from Ext P5. Thereupon, the appellant submitted a detailed representation requesting for a lenient view and also undertaking not to repeat his mistakes. On the basis of the appellant's request and on humanitarian grounds, the proposed punishment was reduced to reversion to the lower post of Printing Helper in the scale of pay 3050-5230, with basic pay fixed at Rs.3050/-. In that order (Ext P7), it was also ordered that the appellant would not be entitled for salary for the period during which he was under suspension. As against Ext P7 order dated 15.10.2004, the appellant is alleged to have submitted Exts P9, P10 & P11 representations. Ext P12 reply was given, in answer to Ext P10 representation dated 4.2.2011, submitted before the Minister for Printing and Stationary. In Ext P12 it was stated that the Government had considered the appellant's request in detail and had come to the conclusion that his request is liable to be rejected. In spite of the definite stand of the Government, conveyed through Ext P12, the appellant pursued with his representations and the Government reiterated its stand and conveyed it through Ext P18. Thereupon, the Writ Petition was filed challenging Ext P3, the suspension order dated 18.3.2004, Ext P4, the inquiry report dated 13.9.2004, Ext P6 (sic), the appellant's own representation dated 15.10.2004, Ext P7, the order imposing punishment dated 27.12.2004, Ext P17 letter dated 22.4.2015 and Ext P18 communication dated 1.1.2016. Surprisingly, Ext P12, the first order of rejection has not been challenged. The other prayer in the Writ Petition is to restore the service of the appellant, by placing him in the post and position as on the date of Ext P7 and to grant attendant benefits within a time frame.

(2.) By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge found that there was inordinate delay on the part of the appellant in approaching the court and that the charges against the appellant having been proved, the reduced punishment of demotion to a lower post cannot be seen as disproportionate, when compared with the gravity of the misconduct found against the appellant. Based on the said findings, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition, while at the same time making it clear that the punishment imposed vide Ext P7 shall be seen only as demoting/reverting the appellant to the lower post and shall not be seen as depriving the appellant of the benefit of the years of service rendered in the organization prior to the punishment.

(3.) In this appeal, the challenge against the impugned judgment is mainly on the ground that the dismissal of the Writ Petition on the ground of delay was illegal, inasmuch as the appellant had been diligently pursuing the matter through his representations, as was evident from Exts P9 to P11 and P13 representations and Exts P16 to P18 communications. The other challenge is on the ground that the learned Single Judge committed a mistake in finding that the punishment imposed on the appellant did not warrant interference. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that in view of the repeated representations submitted by the appellant, the issue raised by the appellant was kept live and therefore, the refusal to consider the issue on merits was illegal.