1. The petitioner retired from the service of the first respondent-Corporation on 30/4/1997, while working as District Transport Officer, Vizhinjam. The main grievance raised in this Original Petition is against the punishment imposed on him vide Ext.P13 order of the disciplinary authority, which is confirmed in Ext.P22 order passed by the appellate authority. His further grievances are in relation to non-payment of monthly pension applicable to District Transport Officer, non-payment of provident fund, welfare fund, etc., and also non-disposal of Ext.P24 application for parity fixation.

2. The petitioner, while working as Inspector, was posted for attending the RTA meetings, schedule revision works and other connected matters, vide Ext.P1 order of the District Transport Officer, Kollam. While continuing as such, he was placed under suspension vide Ext.P2 order alleging gross dereliction of duty in relation to filing of objections against grant of permits to various private operators violating the scheme of nationalisation. Based on Ext.P3 preliminary enquiry report the petitioner was issued with Ext.P4 charge sheet with statement of allegations. The petitioner submitted Ext.P7 written statement of defence denying the charge levelled against him. In Ext.P11 enquiry report the enquiry officer found him guilty of the charge. Agreeing with the findings in Ext.P11 report, the disciplinary authority vide Ext.P13 imposed on the petitioner a punishment of increment bar for a period of one month temporarily. It was further ordered to treat the period of suspension as eligible leave.

3. Aggrieved by Ext.P13 order, the petitioner filed Ext.P14 appeal before the Managing Director of the first respondent-Corporation, who is the appellate authority in relation to an appeal filed under Rule 23 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960. But the appellate authority vide Ext.P22 rejected the said appeal, thereby confirming the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. It was in such circumstances, the petitioner moved this court in this Original Petition, challenging Exts.P2, P4, P13, P18 and P22 orders and seeking other consequential reliefs. In spite of service of notice, no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended, inter alia, that Ext.P13 order passed by the disciplinary authority and Ext.P22 order passed by the appellate authority are vitiated by total non-application of mind. There is nothing in Ext.P22 to show that there is application of mind by the appellate authority while agreeing with the findings in the enquiry report and confirming the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority.

5. I find considerable force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Ext.P22 order passed by the appellate authority is vitiated by total non-application of mind. It is aggrieved by the punishment imposed in Ext.P13 order passed by the disciplinary authority, the petitioner preferred Ext.P14 appeal, under Rule 23 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CC&A Rules’ only), before the appellate authority. The punishment of increment bar imposed on the petitioner is one of the penalties specified under Rule 11(1) of the CC&A Rules. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 31 of the CC&A Rules deals with consideration of appeals by the appellate authority against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in Rule 11 (1), which reads thus;

“31. Consideration of appeals:-

(1) xx xx xx xx

(2) In the case of an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in rule 11(1) the appellate authority shall consider,-

(a) whether the facts on which the order was based have been established;

(b) whether the facts established afford sufficient ground for taking action;

(c) whether the procedure prescribed in these rules has been complied with