Judges : M.M.PAREED PILLAY,P.SHANMUGAM
Glory Fernandez - Appellant
Versus
High Court of Kerala - Respondent
Case No : O.P.No. 6744 of 1988
Decided On : 08/22/1995
Advocates Appeared :
M. Ramachandran & P. V. Abraham For Petitioner T.R. Govinda Warriyar (Sr. Advocate), R. Ramadas & Govt. Pleader (N. Sankara Menon) For Respondents
Appeal - Disciplinary Proceedings - Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules - Rule 23(a) - Article 235 of the Constitution - [APPEAL] - [DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS] - [Rule 11, Rule 23(a), Article 235] - The court discussed the applicability of Rule 23(a) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules and Article 235 of the Constitution in the context of disciplinary proceedings against a judicial officer. It interpreted the provisions to determine the availability of appellate remedy to the petitioner and concluded that the High Court, as the appointing authority, had the final authority in disciplinary proceedings against members of the subordinate judiciary, and no appeal against its decision lay to the Government.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a judicial officer, filed an appeal against an order of dismissal from service. The appeal was withheld by the High Court, which claimed final authority in disciplinary proceedings against members of the subordinate judiciary.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the High Court, as the appointing authority, had the final authority in disciplinary proceedings against members of the subordinate judiciary, and no appeal against its decision lay to the Government. It dismissed the original petition.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner had the right to file an appeal against the order of dismissal from service before the State Government.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Rule 23(a) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules and Article 235 of the Constitution to determine the availability of appellate remedy to the petitioner. It concluded that the High Court, as the appointing authority, had the final authority in disciplinary proceedings against members of the subordinate judiciary, and no appeal against its decision lay to the Government.
Final Decision: The original petition was dismissed.
Pareed Pillay, CJ.
On the basis of an anonymous complaint action was initiated against the petitioner. The District Judge conducted enquiry with regard to the allegations and reported to the first respondent that there is no substance in the allegations. As per orders of the first respondent a further enquiry was conducted by the Vigilance Cell of the High Court. A charge sheet (Ext. P1) was issued to the petitioner on 3.7.1986. He filed explanation on 3-8-1986 denying the charges. His explanation has been marked as Ext. P2. The first respondent as per Order dated 31-10-1986 ordered departmental enquiry against the petitioner. The Third Additional District Judge, Ernakulam was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. On the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer (Ext. P7) the first respondent directed the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service as per Ext. P8. Petitioner submitted Ext. P9 reply to Ext. P8. His explanation was found not acceptable and Ext. P10 order of dismissal was issued.
2. Petitioner filed Ext. P 11 appeal under Rule 23(a) and Note 1 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules before the second respondent against Ext. P10 order. The appeal was submitted before the first respondent for the purpose of forwarding it to the second respondent Appellate Authority. But, without forwarding the same petitioner was informed as per Ext. P12 that having regard to the control vested in the High Court over the Subordinate Courts under Article 235 of the Constitution of India the High Court is the final authority in disciplinary proceedings against the members of the subordinate judiciary, and no appeal against its decision lies to the Government. Accordingly the appeal petition addressed to the Government was withheld by the first respondent.
3. Though several contentions have been raised in the writ petition, the only contention urged before us by petitioner's counsel is that withholding of the appeal petition addressed to the Government by the first respondent was without any justification and that the reasons stated in Ext. P12 cannot be sustained. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Article 235 of the Constitution really enables the petitioner to file appeal before the second respondent and there was no rhyme or reason for the first respondent to have withheld the same. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the High Court being the appointing authority of the petitioner is not subordinate to the Government and so petitioner could not have filed appeal under Rule 23 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules and hence no interference is warranted against Ext. P12 order.
4. As the petitioner during the relevant time was a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class he is governed by Kerala Criminal Judicial Service Rules. The Special Rules govern recruitments, promotions, etc. Rule 11 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules relates to the nature of penalties that can be imposed against a Government servant. Rule 23 provides for appeal against orders imposing
penalties. Rule 23(a) enables every member of service- State or Subordinate - to file appeal against an order imposing upon him any of the penalties specified in rule 11(1) or discharging him in accordance with the terms of his contract if he has been engaged on a contract for a fixed or for an indefinite period and has rendered under either form of contract continuous service for a period exceeding five years at the time when his services are terminated to the authority to which authority imposing the penalty is immediately subordinate. The proviso makes the position clear that where an order is passed by the Government, there shall be no appeal. Note 1 reads:
"A member of the Kerala Civil Judicial Service or the Kerala Criminal Judicial Service or the Kerala Judicial Ministerial or the Kerala Last Grade Servic
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.