Ramachandra Menon, J.@mdashThe appellant/writ petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge whereby his prayer to cancel the suspension being continued for nearly eight years was declined to be interfered with.
2. The appellant is a Police Constable who allegedly got involved in some serious misconduct with regard to the misappropriation of funds including forgery of the bills which led to registration of a crime (Crime No. 209/2002 of the Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram) involving the offences under Sections 420, 409, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code(IPC). In connection with the further steps the higher authorities proceeded to arrest the appellant, which was sought to be evaded by him and he absconded from the scene. This led to another misconduct as well; which was proceeded against and three increments were barred with cumulative effect. The appellant contended that the unauthorised absence having culminated in imposition of a punishment of barring three increments with cumulative effect, there was absolutely no justification for continuing the suspension, which in turn was sought to be intercepted by filing the writ petition.
3. The respondents contended that the suspension was not merely for the unauthorised absence and that the major misconduct was with regard to the misappropriation of funds and forgery committed by the appellant which was being separately pursued by a domestic enquiry; besides the crime registered where investigation was going on. By virtue of Rule 63(ii) of the Manual of Disciplinary Proceedings, the disciplinary proceedings could not be pursued or finalized during the pendency of the criminal proceedings and hence it was kept in abeyance. After taking note of the rival submissions, interference was declined and the writ petition was dismissed; which in turn is under challenge in this appeal.
4. Heard Sri.K.R.B.Kaimal, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
5. A statement dated 19.6.2010 is seen filed in the writ petition, on behalf of the second respondent, wherein it is stated in paragraph 4 that, as per the Government letter No. G2 51340/H3/4 dated 22.12.2008 it was informed to the office of the second respondent not to reinstate the appellant until the investigation of the crime was over. However, it has been categorically stated in the previous paragraph of the same statement, that the Superintendent of Police, CBCID, Narcotic Cell who was entrusted with the investigation of the above crime, had completed the investigation on 6.12.2008 and factual report and draft charge were submitted before the ADGP (Crimes) and thereafter on 28.1.2009, the ADGP had submitted a request for sanction for prosecuting the appellant u/s 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
6. Going by the contents of the said statement, it is quite evident that the investigation is already over; pursuant to which a draft charge has been prepared and submitted before the concerned authority for taking further steps. This being the position, there cannot be any further hurdle for the respondents with regard to the contents of the letter dated 22.12.2008 issued by the Government. In any view of the matter, the issue is stated as still pending before the first respondent, by way of Ext.P5 representation preferred by the appellant/petitioner. Learned Senior Government Pleader submits that Ext.P5 will be considered and acted upon by the first respondent on merits and appropriate orders will be passed thereon within the shortest possible time.
7. In the said circumstances, this Court directs the first respondent to consider Ext.P5 and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, of course, after giving an opportunity for hearing to the appellant. Final orders shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The writ appeal is disposed of as above.
