IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 37497 of 2007(L)
1. S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SENIOR
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION,
3. DR.MANGALAM, JOINT DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL
For Petitioner :SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :07/03/2008
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.37497 OF 2007
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of March, 2008
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is challenging disciplinary proceedings
initiated against him. He raises inter-alia a ground that the
Government has not independently considered the explanation
submitted by the petitioner before deciding to proceed further in
accordance with the Kerala Civil Services (Classification Control
and Appeal) Rules, 1960.
2. The Government pleader would contend that it is after
the Government considered the matter appropriately that the
decision to continue disciplinary proceedings against the
petitioner as per Ext.P5 was taken.
3. I have heard both sides. In Ext.P5 order the
Government has stated thus:
“Memo of charges and statement of allegations
were served on Shri. Gopakumaran Nair vide
reference read as 2nd paper above. Shri.
Gopakumaran Nair submitted the Written
Statement of Defence and the Director of Medical
Education vide letter above reported that Written
Statement of Defence is not satisfactory.”
W.P.(c) No.37497/07 2
Ext.P5 indicates that the Government had gone by the report
of the Director of Medical Education as to whether the written
statement of defence is satisfactory or not. There is nothing in
Ext.P5, which indicates that the Government had
independently considered the written statement of defence
filed by the petitioner before deciding to proceed further as
directed in Ext.P5. The Government being the disciplinary
authority, the Government ought to have independently
considered the written statement of defence before taking a
decision as to whether the same is satisfactory or not.
In the above circumstances, Ext.P5 is quashed and this
writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:
The 1st respondent shall independently consider Ext.P3
written statement of defence submitted by the petitioner and
shall take an independent decision as to whether the same is
satisfactory or not, in order to either continue the disciplinary
proceedings as per the Kerala Civil Services (Classification
Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960, or to drop further
proceedings. Needless to say, further proceedings pursuant to
Ext.P5, already taken, would also stand quashed.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
Acd
W.P.(c) No.37497/07 3