IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 5575 of 2007(L)
1. P.O.SOMAN, PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH,
3. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYATH OFFICER,
4. THE KONNI PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.MATHEW SEBASTIAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.K.DENESAN
Dated :20/02/2007
O R D E R
K.K.DENESAN, J.
-----------------------------
WP(C)No. 5575 OF 2007
-----------------------------
Dated this the 20th February, 2007.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner stands removed from service by way of
penalty imposed on him on the allegation that he was
unauthorisedly absent from duty.
2. The petitioner commenced service on 1.6.1972. With
effect from 1.12.1980, on being posted in another place, he
failed to attend duties after just reporting in that office
along with the order of transfer. For quite sometime
nothing was known about him. After a considerable period
of time, he sought for reinstatement in service. The
respondents took proceedings against him and after
observing the procedure prescribed by law, came to the
conclusion that there was no justification for him to
absent unauthorisedly. The contention raised by the
petitioner that he was suffering from mental disorder was
found against.
3. The petitioner approached this Court earlier in
2001. Pursuant to the directions issued in that writ
petition, the Government considered the plea of the
petitioner. Ext.P3 order dated 19.7.2006 has been passed
rejecting the representation of the petitioner. Against the
order thus passed, this writ petition has been filed.
WPC 5575/2007 2
4. It is not necessary for this Court to examine
whether the order removing him from service is vitiated or
any procedural illegality or non-compliance of the
procedure prescribed by law, because the petitioner admits
in ground ‘C’ of the writ petition that he has no case that
legal formalities had not been complied with before
removing him from service. The only contention urged before
me is that the respondents have failed to appreciate the
materials made available to make them believe that he was
suffering from mental disorder. I find no merit in the
above contention. It has been found that the petitioner
failed to produce medical certificate in support of the
contention that he was suffering from mental disorder. He
produced a certificate said to have been issued by one
T.K.Pappu Vaidyar, which document on scrutiny by the
departmental authority did not contain the signature of the
person who issued it, the date on which it was issued or
the nature of the disease the petitioner was suffering
from. It was also found further said that the Director of
Panchayats had recorded in his order dated 2.6.1984 that
the petitioner had, in fact, gone to the office of the
Deputy Director of Panchayats one day during the relevant
period and was found not suffering from any mental ailment.
The presence of the petitioner in the office of the Deputy
Director of Panchayats on the aforesaid date assumes
WPC 5575/2007 3
significance because according to the petitioner, during
that period, he was suffering from mental disorder.
5. It is trite that this Court will not reappreciate
the evidence or materials leading to conclusions on
disputed questions of fact under Art.226 of the
Constitution of India. Even if I propose to embark on such
unwelcome areas, I find materials justifying the
conclusions reached against the petitioner and find no
error, factual and legal, apparent on the face of Ext.P3.
I am of the view that the Government have considered the
case of the petitioner on merits and with due application
of mind, though the petitioner had approached the
departmental authorities after a long lapse of time.
6. The fervent request made by the counsel for the
petitioner that Ext.P3 may be set aside and the Government
may be directed to re-consider the matter once again, does
not appeal to me for reasons aforesaid, as the proper
course of action this Court is expected to follow in a
matter of this nature. Writ petition fails and is
dismissed.
K.K.DENESAN
Judge
jj