C.Madhumani vs Inspector General Of Police on 29 June, 2009

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

C.Madhumani vs Inspector General Of Police on 29 June, 2009

Bench: P.N.Ravindran

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 15562 of 2009(M)


1. C.MADHUMANI, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SALIM V.S.

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN

 Dated :29/06/2009

 O R D E R
                              P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
                =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                       W.P.(C) No. 15562 of 2009
                =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                  Dated this the 29th day of June, 2009

                               JUDGMENT

While the petitioner was working as Sub Inspector of Police in the Kerala Armed Police 2nd Battalion, he was placed under suspension, pending disciplinary action. The disciplinary action was finalized by Ext.P1 order dated 27-2-2008 reducing him to the rank of Assistant Sub Inspector of Police for a period of three years. On appeal filed by the petitioner, by Ext.P2 order dated 28-10-2008 the Director General of Police modified the punishment of reduction in rank to barring of one increment without cumulative effect. The petitioner's grievance is that though Ext.P1 order was implemented reducing his rank, in view of Ext.P2, as the said punishment has been modified, the respondents are bound to repost him as Sub Inspector of Police.

2. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that by order passed on 15-6-2009, the Inspector General of Police, Armed Police Battalion has promoted the petitioner to the rank of Sub Inspector of Police with immediate effect and posted him in Kerala Armed W.P.(C) No. 15562/2009 2 Police 5th Battalion.

In view of the said development, no further orders are called for in this writ petition. It is accordingly closed as infructuous. If the petitioner has any subsisting grievance, he may move the competent authority among the respondents and the said authority shall on receipt of such a representation, consider the same and pass orders thereon within four months from the date of receipt of such representation.

P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE.

mn.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court