Back
2021 Supreme(Ker) 1120
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Alexander Thomas, Viju Abraham, JJ.
Jino K R – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By Secretary To Government, Home (H) Department and ors. – Respondents
OP(KAT) NO. 323 OF 2021
Decided On : 04-12-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: M.Hemalatha, Adv.
For the Respondent: Sri.B.Unnikrishna Kaimal, Sr.Govt.Pleader
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of judicial review in service matters, emphasizing that the powers of interference are limited to correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice.
Headnote:
Disciplinary Proceedings - Kerala Administrative Tribunal - [Disciplinary Proceedings] - [Union of India v. Parma Nanda (1989) 2 SCC 177, B.C.Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Others (1995) 6 SCC 749, Govt. of Andra Pradesh and Others v. Mohammed Nasrullah Khan (2006)2 SCC 373, Pravin Kumar v. Union of India and Others (2020) 9 SCC 471, Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and Others v. Ajai Kumar Srivastava (2021) 2 SCC 612] - The court discussed the disciplinary proceedings and the scope of judicial review in service matters. It emphasized that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with disciplinary matters or punishment cannot be equated with an appellate jurisdiction. The court also highlighted that judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. The court reiterated that the powers of interference are limited to correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the final verdict rendered by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, seeking to set aside certain orders and to treat the period of suspension as duty for all practical purposes including salary. The petitioner was placed under suspension pending an enquiry into allegations of misconduct. The disciplinary authority imposed a punishment, which was upheld in the appeal and review stages. The petitioner contended that the authorities did not consider his contentions properly and that the non-examination of a key witness went against the allegations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the enquiry was conducted in a proper and fair manner, and the prescribed procedures were followed. It held that the punishment imposed was after complying with all the procedures contemplated by law. The court also emphasized that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to defend his case at every stage of the proceedings. The court dismissed the petitioner's claim, stating that the petitioner's contentions were based on impermissible re-appreciation of evidence.
Issues: The issues revolved around the proper conduct of the disciplinary proceedings, the consideration of the petitioner's contentions, and the scope of judicial review in service matters.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with disciplinary matters or punishment cannot be equated with an appellate jurisdiction. It reiterated that judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. The court also highlighted that the powers of interference are limited to correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's claim, finding no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal in the case.
JUDGMENT :
Viju Abraham, J.
Petitioner has instituted the instant O.P. challenging Ext.P1 final verdict rendered on 28.04.2021 by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram Bench in O.A.(TVM) No.1724 of 2017, with the following prayers :
(i) Issue an order to set aside Annexure-A7, A9 and 11;
(ii) Direct the respondents to treat the period of suspension of the applicant as duty for all practical purposes including salary;
(iii) to issue such other orders, directions as may be prayed for and this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit on the facts and circumstances of the case;
(iv) Award the cost of the proceedings
2. Petitioner is the applicant in the abovesaid O.A filed before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal challenging Annexures-A7, A9, and A11 orders and seeking for a consequential direction to the respondents therein to treat the period of suspension as duty for all purposes. As per the averments in the original application, the petitioner while working under the 3rd respondent was placed under suspension as per Annexure-A1 order dated 05.09.2014, pending enquiry into the allegation that the petitioner on 25.08.2014 misbehaved towards the wife of one of his colleagues over the phone and that he went to the quarters at night when the colleague was not in the station and he ran away from the place when the neighbours saw him and the said act of the petitioner lowered the standard and morale of the Police Academy. A preliminary enquiry was conducted before the issuance of the Annexure-A1 order of suspension and a report was submitted on 04.09.2014. It is alleged that the said preliminary enquiry was conducted behind the back of the petitioner. Thereafter Annexure-A2 memo of charges and a statement of allegation were issued on 21.02.2015. Subsequently Sri.K.K.Aji, DySP (Indoor), Kerala Police Academy was appointed as the enquiry officer to enquire into the allegations against the petitioner. Annexure-A3 reply statement dated 24.08.2015 was filed by the petitioner before the enquiry officer. After enquiry, Annexure-A4 report (PR Minutes) dated 13.10.2015 was submitted to the 3rd respondent. It is contended that Exts.P1 to P5 statements were recorded at the time of preliminary enquiry without notice to the petitioner. Further, it is contended that the complainant, who is a lady was not examined in the enquiry and therefore, the allegation of misbehavior cannot be said to be proved.
3. The Disciplinary authority, after accepting Annexure-A4 enquiry report, tentatively decided to impose a punishment of barring of two increments with cumulative effect, and accordingly Annexure-A5 show cause notice dated 21.10.2015 was issued. On 21.10.2015 itself the petitioner was reinstated in service by the 3rd respondent. Petitioner submitted Annexure-A6 detailed written statement dated 27.10.2015 in reply to Annexure-A5 show-cause notice. The 3rd respondent, without considering any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in Annexure-A6 reply, finalised the disciplinary proceedings as per Annexure-A7 dated 12.11.2015, imposing a punishment of barring of two increments with cumulative and regularized the period of suspension as duty for the limited purpose of pension and gratuity. Aggrieved by Annexure-A7 order, the petitioner had preferred Annexure-A8 appeal dated 10.12.2015 before the 2nd respondent. Without considering any of the contentions raised in the appeal filed by the petitioner, the same was dismissed as per Annexure-A9 order dated 29.02.2016. Aggrieved by the orders contained in Annexures A7 and A9, the petitioner preferred Annexure-A10 review dated 21.06.2016 before the 1st respondent. The Government rejected the said review as per Annexure-A11 order dated 29.05.2017. It is aggrieved by the same the petitioner had approached the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram Bench by preferring O.A.(TVM) No.1724 of 2017.
4. A detailed reply statement was filed on behalf of the 1st respondent mainly contending that the allegat
