Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.

Judgment dated 11.10.2013 in W.P(C). No. 13462/12 is called in question in this appeal by the unsuccessful writ petitioner. By the impugned judgment, the writ petition was dismissed and consequently, the order of termination of the appellant, passed by the disciplinary authority, is confirmed.

2. The appellant, while working as Basket Ball Coach in the second respondent Kerala Sports Council, was placed under suspension on 14.1.2009 owing to certain incidents happened during the period from September to December, 2008. A preliminary enquiry was conducted by Mr. M.M. Abdul Rahiman, who was a member of the Finance and Administrative Committee of the second respondent during the relevant point of time. After conducting preliminary enquiry, Mr. M.M. Abdul Rahiman recommended disciplinary action against the appellant. Consequently, on 12.5.2009, Mr.Mathew Paul, a member of the second respondent, was appointed as Enquiry Officer. He served memo of charges on the appellant on 14.1.2000. However, the appointment of Mr.Mathew Paul as Enquiry Officer was cancelled as per Ext.P2 by the second respondent. Thereafter, Ext.P3 fresh memo of charges was issued by the Secretary of the second respondent on 7.6.2010, for which, the appellant submitted a statement of defence as per Ext.P4. Later, Mr.P.Babu, a retired Joint Labour Commissioner, was appointed as Enquiry Officer as per Ext.P5, who conducted enquiry and submitted Ext.P6 report on 9.5.2011 holding that the charges levelled against the appellant are proved. The disciplinary authority accepted the said report and issued show cause notice as per Ext.P7 to the appellant, in order to facilitate him to submit objections, if any. The appellant submitted his representation to the show cause notice as per Ext.P8. However, the same was rejected by the second respondent by passing order at Ext.P9. It was also decided to terminate the service of the appellant, based on which, Ext.P10 order of termination from service was issued on 2.9.2011. Against the order of termination, the appellant took recourse to the statutory remedy of revision before the first respondent under section 8(4) of the Kerala Sports Act, 2000, which was dismissed by the revisional authority. The order of termination as well as the order of the revisional authority was questioned by the appellant before this Court in W.P (C). 13462/12, which came to be dismissed by the impugned judgment. Accordingly, this appeal is filed by the unsuccessful writ petitioner.

3. Before proceeding further, we may take note of the memo of charges issued to the appellant, which stood thus:

That he misbehaved with Miss. Veena Ravi Mathew, D/o.Ravi Mathew, residing at Kottayadiyil, Thekkekara Village, mavelikkara during the competitions at Amaravathi;

That he compelled her for sexual relations and warned her that he would spoil her career if the matter is reported anywhere.

That he has sexually assaulted one Anjaly, a Plus I student of Vimala Hridaya School while she was undergoing practise in the Sports Councl Hostel at Kollam.

That he has failed to comply with the general condition that while going to far off places for competitions, one lady should accompany, and accordingly it is alleged that he has committed irregularities and thereby has violated the conduct Rules 1 to 10 of the Rules for the Coaches under the Kerala State Sports Council.

4. The appellant has denied all the charges levelled against him specifically. As mentioned supra, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding that the charges levelled against the appellant are proved. The Disciplinary Authority, after following due procedure, accepted the enquiry report and passed the order of termination, which has been confirmed by the revisional authority as well as this Court.

5. Learned senior counsel Smt. Sumathi Dandapani who appeared on behalf of the appellant, based on the materials on record, submits that the Disciplinary Authority is not justified