Point of Law: Suspended from service - Minimum period of permanent barring of increment shall not be less than one year and maximum period shall not be more than three years - Permanent barring of increment shall mean withholding of increment with cumulative effect namely, it shall have effect of postponing future increment.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner in WP(C) No.25635/2015 has filed the instant Writ Appeal under Sec.5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, so as to impugn the judgment dated 19.11.2020 whereby the said writ petition has been dismissed.

2. Heard Smt.Sindhu Santhalingam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in the W.A./petitioner in the WP(C) and Sri.Ashok M.Cherian, learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) appearing for the respondents in the W.A./respondents in the WP(C).

3. The prayers in the abovesaid WP(C) No.25635/2015 are as follows: {See page 40 of the paper book of this W.A.}

“1. Call for the entire records pertaining to the issuance of Exhibit P-6, P-8 and P-10 Order and Issue a Writ of Certiorari, any other Order, writ or direction to quash the same.

2. Issue a Writ of Mandamus, any other Order, writ or direction, directing the 2nd Respondent to reconsider Exhibit P-9 appeal preferred by the Petitioner, with specific consideration of the grounds pleaded by this Petitioner in appeal.

3. Such other reliefs that this Honourable Court deem fit and proper to grant in the interest of justice.

4. Award costs of the proceedings.”

4. The learned Single Judge after hearing both sides has rendered the impugned judgment on 19.11.2020 whereby the above WP(C) was dismissed on the ground that the appellant/petitioner has not made out the grounds so as to invoke the public law remedy to interdict with the impugned disciplinary proceedings rendered in this case. Further that, it cannot be said that the impugned penalty order at Ext.P-8 rendered by the 3rd respondent Chief Engineer is on the basis of “no legally acceptable evidence on record” and that the submissions of the appellant/petitioner regarding the sufficiency or otherwise of the evidential materials to justify the finding of guilt in the impugned proceedings are beyond the scope and ambit of the public law remedy of judicial review, and that the impugned penalty of barring of two increments with cumulative effect imposed on the appellant/petitioner cannot be said to excessive or unreasonable etc. It is these findings of the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment that is under challenge in this intra court appeal.

5. The appellant while serving as Assistant Executive Engineer was initially suspended from service as per Ext.P-1 order 25.11.2011 issued by the 3rd respondent for initiating disciplinary proceedings, and later he was served with the impugned Ext.P-2 memo of charges and statement of allegations dated 24.12.2011 for initiating major penalty proceedings against him. The appellant had submitted Ext.P-3 explanation thereto. Further, it appears that the competent authority among the respondents has conducted a detailed enquiry as contemplated for major penalty proceedings in this case and an enquiry officer was appointed in the matter to conduct the detailed enquiry in respect of the various allegations raised in Ext.P-2 memo of charges and statement of allegations. The enquiry officer, after granting sufficient opportunity to the appellant, has submitted Ext.P-6 enquiry report dated 8.4.2013 in the matter, a copy of which was also served on the appellant by the disciplinary authority, who has also issued Ext.P-5 show cause notice dated 9.10.2013 directing the appellant to show cause as to why the findings in Ext.P-6 enquiry report shall not be accepted and as to why the proposed penalty of barring of two increments with cumulative effect shall not be imposed on the appellant/petitioner. The appellant has submitted Ext.P-7 explanation thereto. Later, the 3rd respondent disciplinary authority has issued the impugned Ext.P-8 order dated 30.4.2014 ordering that the findings of guilt arrived at by enquiry officer at Ext.P-6 are confirmed and that taking a lenient view, instead of the proposed penalty of barring of two increments with cumulative effect, a lesser penalty of barring of one increment with cumulative effect is imposed on the appella