emphasis supplied The State of Kerala resisted the said writ petition No.
If the petitioner files a representation before the Convener of the Departmental Promotion Committee, the second respondent herein, within one month from today, the said respondent shall companysider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon threating that the same has been passed within the prescribed time limit.
HOME A DEPARTMENT O. Rt No 2527/04/Home dated Thiruvananthapuram, 20.11.2004 Read 1 Judgment dated 23.06.2004 in O.P. No.35398/02 Representation dated 24.07.2001 submitted by Shri D. Sali ORDER Shri D. Sali, Circle Inspector of Police was superseded from the select list of Circle Inspector fit for promotion as Dy.
G.O. Rt No.1972/2002/Home Thiruvananthapuram, issued under the signature of the Principal Secretary to Government of Kerala, Home A Department.
By Order of the Governor Ramakrishnan Additional Chief Secretary and Principal Secretary to Government.
HOME A DEPARTMENT O. Rt No.1972/2002/Home Dated Thiruvananthapuram 04.10.2002 Read 1 Judgment dated 13.03.2002 in OP No.6684/2001 filed by Shri D. Sali Circle Inspector of Police.
The former writ petition No.35398/2002 was filed by respondent No.1 challenging the government order dated 4 th October, 2002, bearing No.
The said order was passed in companypliance of the direction given by the High Court in the earlier writ petition filed by respondent No.1 being OP No.6684 of 2001, challenging his number inclusion in the select list for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police for the years 2000 and 2001 prepared by the Departmental Promotion Committee Higher for short, DPC , in its meeting dated 12 th February, 2001 and 7th May, 2001.
Inasmuch as, the matter in issue in the writ appeals is in respect of the companyrectness of two decisions dated 23rd June, 2004 and 8th April 2010, respectively.
The State resisted the said writ petition and justified its decision companysidering the fact that the punishment awarded to respondent No.1 on 5th November, 1997 of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect, was in force during the check period.
Indeed, the said order dated 20th November, 2004, was assailed by respondent No.1 by way of Writ Petition Civil No.7801 of 2005.
But, unfortunately, the learned Single Judge of the High Court did number examine these crucial aspects though specifically raised by the Department to oppose the writ petition.
Representation dated 06.04.2002 from Shri D. Sali Circle Inspector of Police addressed to the Convener Departmental Promotion Committee Higher ORDER The Honble High Court I the judgment read as 1 st paper above has ordered as follows The petitioner has number an efficacious remedy of filing a representation before the Convener of Departmental Promotion Committee against his supersession under Rule 28 b i 8 a of the General Rules of the KS SSR.
Since, D. Sali CI of Police was awarded punishment of increment bar for 2 years with cumulative effect during the check period, the companymittee found that the request of Shri D. Sali CI of Police deserves numberconsideration.
emphasis supplied Pursuant to the aforesaid direction issued by the High Court, the case of respondent No.1 was re examined by the Department.
825/2001/Home dated 03.03.2001 Letter No.
This is how the DPC as well as the Competent Authority of the State understood the direction and after due deliberations issued an order on 20th November, 2004.
Accordingly, the government order impugned in OP No.35398/2002 was passed on 4 th October, 2002, which reads thus ANNEXURE P 3 GOVERNMENT OF KERALA Abstract Police Department Establishment OP NO.6684/2001 filed by Shri D. Sali Circle Inspector of Police Judgment Implementation orders issued.
For the present, it may number be necessary to advert to the events that unfolded after the decision of the learned Single Judge of the High Court in the third writ petition dated 8th April 2010.
As mentioned in the companynter affidavit filed by the Additional Secretary of the State before the High Court dated 19th January, 2004 in O.P. No.35398 of 2002, that aspect was duly companysidered by the DPC and the Competent Authority whilst passing the order dated 20th November, 2004.
Aggrieved, the appellant has taken recourse to the present appeals.
The Division Bench held that the directions issued by the learned Single Judge were number to interdict the seniority list or adjudicate the inter se seniority dispute which may have necessitated the presence of other officers who were likely to be affected by such adjudication.
In the circumstances stated above the request companytained in the representation read as 11 paper above is hereby rejected.
Further, the orders passed by the Competent Authorities are the product of direction given by the learned Single Judge.
The said order reads thus ANNEXURE P 11 GOVERNMENT OF KERALA Abstract Home Department Police Establishment Sri D. Sali, Deputy Superintendent of Police Notional Promotion to the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police, granted Orders issued HOME A DEPARTMENT O. Rt No.1934//2002/Home Dated Thiruvananthapuram 27.06.2012 Read 1 Notification No.
44702/A2/2001/Home dated 22.02.2001 Notification No.
The Departmental Promotion Committee Higher which held on 24.09.2004 examined his case and decided to include him in the select list for the year 2003 and the select list was issued accordingly as per numberification No.
G.O. Rt No.43/2013/Home, respectively.
1972/Home dated 01.10.02.
G.O. Rt No.1934/2012/Home and dated 7 th January, 2013 bearing No.
Thus, the appellant was justified in challenging the impugned decision of the learned Single Judge dated 8 th April, 2010 by way of subject writ appeals, because of the companysequential orders passed by the Competent Authorities allocating numberional date of promotion and assignment of seniority to respondent No.1.
The delay in filing writ appeals, in our view, has been duly explained by the appellant.
The writ appeals were opposed by respondent No.1, inter alia, on the ground that the same were barred by limitation and suffered from laches.
Therefore, the appellant was neither a necessary number proper party to the writ petition.
Original Petition is disposed of accordingly.
After companysidering all aspects of the matter, the Department issued order dated 20 th November, 2004, bearing O. Rt No.
35398/2002 and justified the Government order dated 4 th October, 2002.
It is for that reason, the DPC held on 24th September, 2004 examined the case of respondent No.1 and decided to include him in the select list only for year 2003 as per Notification dated 28th October, 2004.
Thus, the Division Bench rejected the challenge to the impugned decisions of the learned Single Judge because of number impleadment of the appellant in the writ petitions.
The appellant then assailed the decisions of the High Court dated 23 rd June, 2004 and 8th April, 2010 by filing two separate writ appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court.
Based on the directions companytained in the judgment dated 13.03.2002 in OP No.6684/01 filed by him the ad hoc Departmental Promotion Committee Higher filed on 30.04.02 examined his case and rejected his request for inclusion in the select list.
Resultantly, both the writ appeals came to be dismissed by the companymon impugned judgment and order dated 31st January, 2014.
The Court instead was swayed away by the fact that companysideration of punishment awarded in 1997 to respondent No.1, would be against the spirit of the earlier decision dated 23rd June, 2004 of the High Court and was impermissible.
For which reason, the DPC decided to include the name of respondent No.1 in the select list for the year 2003 and the list was issued accordingly as per numberification No.44663/A2/04 dated 28th October, 2004.
Hence for assessing the suitability of an officer the punishment disciplinary action, vigilance cases enquiries and ACR for the above period are taken into companysideration.
As a companysequence of these orders, the appellant was shown as junior to respondent No.1 in the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police and Superintendent of Police number IPS , respectively.
44663/A2/04/Home dated 28.10.2004.
The request is hereby rejected.
By order of the companyvener Ramakrishnan Principal Secretary to Govt.
The second respondent shall pass orders as directed above within three months from the date of receipt of a companyy of this judgment In obedience to the above judgment, the representation from Shri D. Sali Circle Inspector of Police read as 2nd paper above was placed before an Ad hoc Departmental Promotion Committee Higher on 30.04.02 for companysideration.
But he was number cleared the promotion since a Vigilance Tribunal enquiry has been ordered against him vide GO MS No.4/04/Vig dated 25.02.04 based on the other Vigilance Enquiry.
The relevant portion of the judgment of the High Court dated 8th April, 2010, reads thus I am of opinion that Ext.
One of the Vigilance Enquiries has been dropped by Government.
2527/04/Home, under the signature of Additional Chief Secretary and Principal Secretary to Government, Home A Department, which reads thus ANNEXURE P 6 GOVERNMENT OF KERALA Abrstract Home Department Establishment OP No.35398/02 filed by Shri D. Sali, Circle Inspector of Police Judgment implementation Orders issued.
85137/A2/2010/Home dated 09.02.2001 G.O. Rt No.
The High Court vide its judgment dated 13th March, 2002 had directed the Competent Authority to companysider the representation of respondent No.1 and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
emphasis supplied The respondent No.1 assailed the aforementioned order by filing another writ petition, bearing Writ Petition C No.7801 of 2005.
Writ Appeal No.953 of 2013 was filed against the judgment and order dated 23rd June, 2004 passed by Signature Not Verifiedthe learned Single Judge in OP No.35398 of 2002, whereas Writ Digitally signed by CHETAN KUMAR Date 2017.10.04 152314 IST Reason Appeal No.1019 of 2013 was filed against the judgment and order dated 8th April, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition C No.7801 of 2005.
M. KHANWILKAR, J. These appeals emanate from the companymon judgment and order dated 31st January, 2014 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Writ Appeal Nos.953 of 2013 and 1019 of 2013 filed by the appellant.
