The petitioner is presently working as Ist Grade Driver in the Travancore Devaswom Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board' for short). While he was working as Watcher, in connection with a theft which took place on 1.3.1994, he was placed under suspension along with Sri.P.K.Sathyanarayanan. Disciplinary action was initiated against them and the punishment of barring of one increment with cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner. This happened sometime in the year 1995. The petitioner did not challenge the said order in time. Long thereafter, he submitted a representation dated 25.7.2011 before the Board requesting the Board to reconsider the decision and to exonerate him of the charges. The Board considered and rejected it and communicated its decision to the Devaswom Commissioner by Ext.P3 letter 7.1.2012. The petitioner was also informed of the same by Ext.P2 letter dated 27.4.2012. In this writ petition, filed on 28.5.2014, the petitioner challenges Ext.P1 enquiry report and Exts.P2 and P3 letters. 2. Though various grounds are raised, it is evident from the materials on record that the challenge to Ext.P1 enquiry report as W.P.(C) No.13567/2014 2 also to Exts.P2 and P3 letters is highly belated. The disciplinary action initiated against the petitioner came to an end in the year 1995. It was only in the year 2011 that he moved the Board for reconsideration of the matter. That request was rejected in the year 2012. It was only two years thereafter that the instant writ petition is filed.
3. It is evident from the petitioner's conduct that he did not for reasons best known to him challenge the order imposing punishment in time. His request was therefore rightly rejected by the Board. The challenge to the order of rejection is also highly belated. The only explanation stated by the petitioner for not challenging Exts.P2 and P3 in time is that he got a copy of Ext.P1 only in the year 2014 under the Right to Information Act. In my opinion, the petitioner who suffered the punishment of barring of one increment with cumulative effect which has attained finality cannot, 18 years after the order imposing the punishment was passed, challenge the report of enquiry.
The writ petition is in my opinion misconceived and without any merit. It fails and is dismissed.
vps P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE)