T. Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Kerala,

T. Ashok Kumar vs State of Kerala, ;dpc (Fisheries Department), ;department of Fisheries and Director of Fisheries

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jun 08, 2010

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/903531

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/903531
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Antony Dominic, J.
Decided On: Jun 08, 2010
Case Number: WP (C). No. 12245 of 2010(E)
Subject: Service

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Key legal issue: Service

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

T. Ashok Kumar

Advocate P.V. Jyothi Prasad, Adv.

Respondent

State of Kerala, ;dpc (Fisheries Department), ;department of Fisheries and Director of Fisheries

Advocate Government Pleader

Excerpt

- .....letter reported that disciplinary proceedings are initiated against the petitioner on allegation of financial irregularities. it is stated that the proceedings are pending and it is because of the pendency of the proceedings, his junior smt. k.k. sulochana was considered and recommended for promotion.3. even if the averments in the statement are accepted, fact remains that even during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings, an officer is eligible to be considered for promotion and in such a case, what is to be done is to adopt sealed cover procedure. in this case, the statement filed on behalf of the 1st respondent discloses that such a course of action was not adopted. therefore, necessarily, it calls for convening of review dpc. accordingly, the 2nd respondent is directed to convene a review dpc and consider the case of the petitioner for promotion adopting the sealed cover procedure in his case. this shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month of production of a copy of this judgment.4. at the same time, disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, which was the reason stated for the petitioner's supersession, also has to be finalised. going by the statement, as memo of charges was served on the petitioner on 15/01/2008, necessarily, the proceedings has to be expedited. taking into account the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that his explanation to the memo of charges has already been filed, it is directed that the 4th respondent shall take steps for expeditious completion of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner and that the same shall be concluded, at any rate, within three months of production of a copy of this judgment.the petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before respondents 2 & 4 for compliance.this writ petition is disposed of as above.

Full Judgment

Antony Dominic, J.

1. The petitioner is Assistant Registrar of Fisheries, aspiring promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar of Fisheries. Vacancy in the higher post arose on 31/03/2010. Departmental Promotion Committee was convened on 29/03/2010. Complaining that though his case was considered, for no valid reason his junior is going to be promoted, this writ petition was filed.

2. On behalf of the 1st respondent a statement has been filed. It is stated that though the name of the petitioner along with three others were considered by the DPC, it was decided not to recommend the name of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar of Fisheries on the ground that the Deputy Director of Fisheries, Kozhikkode vide Annexure R1(a) letter reported that disciplinary proceedings are initiated against the petitioner on allegation of financial irregularities. It is stated that the proceedings are pending and it is because of the pendency of the proceedings, his junior Smt. K.K. Sulochana was considered and recommended for promotion.

3. Even if the averments in the statement are accepted, fact remains that even during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings, an Officer is eligible to be considered for promotion and in such a case, what is to be done is to adopt sealed cover procedure. In this case, the statement filed on behalf of the 1st respondent discloses that such a course of action was not adopted. Therefore, necessarily, it calls for convening of review DPC. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent is directed to convene a review DPC and consider the case of the petitioner for promotion adopting the sealed cover procedure in his case. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month of production of a copy of this judgment.

4. At the same time, disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, which was the reason stated for the petitioner's supersession, also has to be finalised. Going by the statement, as memo of charges was served on the petitioner on 15/01/2008, necessarily, the proceedings has to be expedited. Taking into account the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that his explanation to the memo of charges has already been filed, it is directed that the 4th respondent shall take steps for expeditious completion of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner and that the same shall be concluded, at any rate, within three months of production of a copy of this judgment.

The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before respondents 2 & 4 for compliance.

This writ petition is disposed of as above.

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2010 Same Parties T. Ashok Kumar vs State of Kerala, ;dpc (Fisheries Department... Same Subject Service Same Judge Antony Dominic, J.

Service