IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 34056 of 2008(D)
1. P.USHA, W/O.PREMDOSS SWAMI DOSS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE,
3. SMT. MARY JOHN, CHILD DEVELOPMENT
4. THE SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE
For Petitioner :SRI.R.S.KALKURA
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :19/11/2008
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
======================================
W.P.(C)No. 34056 of 2008
======================================
Dated this the 19th day of November 2008
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.R.S.Kalkura, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner.
2. The petitioner, who is presently working as an Integrated
Child Development Service Supervisor, challenges Ext.P5 order
passed by the disciplinary authority and Ext.P9 appellate order
passed by the State Government. By Ext.P5, the disciplinary
authority imposed on the petitioner the punishment of censure.
On an appeal filed by the petitioner, on an analysis of evidence
the Government upheld the imposition of the punishment by
Ext.P9 order. The petitioner challenges Exts.P5 and P9 inter alia
on the ground that the disciplinary action was initiated by the
third respondent out of personal ill will and animosity.
3. The disciplinary authority has, after complying with the
procedure prescribed in the rules and after affording the
petitioner an opportunity to state her case, arrived at the
conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct. The
disciplinary authority has by Ext.P5 order imposed on the
petitioner a minor punishment of censure. The appellate authority
has, after hearing the petitioner in person, concurred with the
decision of the appellate authority. The Apex Court has held that
this Court can in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of
W.P.(C)No.34056 of 2008 2
the Constitution of India, interfere with the orders passed in
disciplinary proceedings only if the principles of natural justice
have not been complied with or the procedure prescribed in the
rules has not been adhered to or if there is no evidence to prove
the charges. The Apex Court has held that this Court cannot act
as an appellate authority, analyse the evidence and come to its
own conclusion as to whether the misconduct alleged has been
proved or not.
In the instant case, apart from alleging that the disciplinary
action was engineered by the third respondent, who according to
the petitioner has animosity and ill will towards her, there is no
material on the basis of which this Court can come to the
conclusion that the order imposing the punishment of censure is
in any way vitiated. The petitioner has no case that the procedure
prescribed in the rules has not been adhered to. She has also no
case that the order was passed by an incompetent authority.
Further the petitioner had also filed an appeal before the
appellate authority at the highest level, viz. the Government. The
Government heard the petitioner, considered her contentions and
passed an order concurring with the disciplinary authority. In
these circumstances, I find no merit in the challenge to Exts.P5
and P9. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE
css/