IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 26610 of 2008(P)
1. V.KRISHNAN NAMBOOTHIRI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS,
3. THE SECRETARY, ATTINGAL MUNICIPALITY
For Petitioner :SRI.S.NARAYANAN NAIR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :15/09/2008
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
-------------------------------
W.P(C). No. 26610 OF 2008
-------------------------------
Dated this the 15th September, 2008.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a pensioner. He retired from service on
30.4.2007 on attaining the age of superannuation, while he was
serving in the Attingal Municipality. While the petitioner was serving
as Upper Division Clerk in the Attingal Municipality disciplinary
action was initiated against him. That culminated in Ext.P8 order
dated 9.12.2005 passed by the Secretary of the Attingal
Municipality. By the said order the Secretary of Attingal
Municipality imposed on the petitioner the punishment of barring
two increments with cumulative effect. On appeal filed by the
petitioner, the Director of Urban Affairs by Ext.P9 order passed on
18.12.2006 reduced the punishment to barring of one increment
with cumulative effect. The petitioner challenged Exts.P8 and P9
before the State Government. By Ext.P11 order passed on
28.6.2007 the Government rejected the appeal filed by the
petitioner. The petitioner challenged Exts.P8, P9 and P11 orders in
W.P(C) 29163 of 2007. By Ext.P15 judgment delivered on
WPC 26610/08 2
3.10.2007 this court directed as follows:-
“Challenge in this writ petition is against
Ext.P6 order of the Municipal Secretary, Attingal
and Ext.P9, the order passed by the Government
affirming the order of penalty issued by the
Secretary of Municipal Common Service. Bar of one
increment with cumulative effect was imposed on
the petitioner.
2. In the circumstances, petitioner may file a
petition invoking Rule 35 of the Rules within a
period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment before the first respondent.
If it is so done, the said petition shall be treated as
within time and a decision be taken thereon by the
first respondent within two months from the date of
receipt of the petition, after hearing the petitioner.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.”
The petitioner thereafter filed Ext.P16 review petition. That was
rejected by Ext.P17 order dated 24.5.2008. In this writ petition the
petitioner challenges Ext.P17.
2. I have heard Shri. S.Narayanan Nair, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Shri. P. Nandakumar, learned Govt.
Pleader appearing for the respondents. In my considered opinion,
Ext.P16 review petition filed by the petitioner was not competent
and was not maintainable under the provisions of the Kerala Civil
Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960. The
WPC 26610/08 3
original order imposing punishment was passed by the Secretary of
Attingal Municipality. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal
and the appellate authority passed Ext.P9 order reducing the
punishment. Under the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control
and Appeal) Rules, 1960 the petitioner had the right to file a review
petition before the State Government invoking Rule 34 of the said
rules. Though styled as an appeal the petitioner invoked that
remedy and by Ext.P11 order passed on 28.6.2007 the Government
rejected the appeal. The petitioner thereafter filed W.P(C) No:
29163 of 2007 challenging Ext.P11, which was marked as Ext.P9 in
the said writ petition. Though, this Court had by Ext.P15 judgment
reserved liberty with the petitioner to file a review petition under
Rule 35 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and
Appeal) Rules, 1960, on the terms of Rule 35 of the Rules, Ext.P16
review petition filed by the petitioner was not maintainable. Rule 35
applies only to review of original orders passed by the Government.
As noticed earlier, the petitioner had invoked the power of the
Government under Rule 34 on an earlier occasion and that led to the
passing of Ext.P11 order. Therefore the second review petition
filed by the petitioner was not maintainable.
WPC 26610/08 4
4. On the merits also I find no reason to interfere with
Ext.P17. The disciplinary authority, the appellate authority and the
Government have considered the various contentions put forward by
the petitioner and have held that the imposition of punishment of
barring of one increment with cumulative effect was justified. In
the instant case, no material has been produced before me to
establish that the finding of guilt entered by the enquiry officer and
accepted by the disciplinary authority is in any way perverse. The
petitioner has also no case that he was not afforded a reasonable
opportunity to defend the charges. The petitioner was not able to
show that the procedure prescribed under the rules was not
complied with. I therefore find no ground to entertain the writ
petition. The writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed in
limine.
P.N.RAVINDRAN
JUDGE
jj