IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. Kunhikrishnan, J.
K. Cheriya Koya – Petitioner
Versus
U.T. Administration Of Lakshadweep Represented By Standing Counsel, High Court Of Kerala And Ors. – Respondents
Review Petition Nos. 97 & 94 of 2023
Decided On : 21-06-2023
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 340, 195 (1) (b) - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 235, 226 or 227 - Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 – Section 3(1) - CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 - Rule 8 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 47 Rule 1 - Review judgment - Place under suspension - Conduct a detailed enquiry - Petitions are filed to review judgment – A portion of judgment/order can be reviewed invoking powers under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution - Para 22.
Finding of the Court :
Provisions of Civil Procedure Code is not as such applicable while deciding a review petition filed in a writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India - Jurisdiction of court under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, to review a judgment is wide and not controlled by provisions of Civil Procedure Code - Contention of review petitioner that a portion of judgment/order cannot be reviewed is unsustainable - A portion of judgment/order can be reviewed invoking powers under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution in a judgment/order rendered in a writ petition or Original Petition, if it will not go against other findings in judgment/order - Since district court and subordinate courts in Lakshadweep are under supervision of High Court of Kerala, it is declared that High Court of Kerala has got power to initiate disciplinary proceedings against presiding officers of district court and courts subordinate thereto in Lakshadweep Islands.
Result: Petitions allowed.
ORDER :
These two review petitions are filed to review the judgment dated 23.12.2022 in O.P.(Crl.) Nos. 608/2022 & 609/2022. The review petitioner is the 3rd respondent in the above original petitions. The above original petitions were disposed of with the following directions :
1) The Administrator, Union Territory of Lakshadweep is directed to place the additional 3rd respondent under suspension forthwith and conduct a detailed enquiry about his actions mentioned in this order forthwith and take appropriate steps in accordance with law, untrammelled by any observation in this judgement.
2) The petitioners in these cases are allowed to raise all their contentions raised in these original petitions before the appellate court by filing appeal against the conviction and sentence imposed in CC No. 24/2016 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Amini, Lakshadweep. If no appeal is filed so far, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners for a further period of one month from today.
3) Issue notice under Sec.340 Cr.P.C. to the additional 3rd respondent, Sri.K.Cheriyakoya, Former Sub Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amini, LAKSHADWEEP, now working as the secretary, District Legal Service Authority, LAKSHADWEEP, Sri.P.P.Muthukoya, Bench Clerk, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Amini and Smt. A.C.Puthunni, LD Clerk (Bench Assistant), Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Amini for conducting a preliminary enquiry because this Court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that such an enquiry should be made into the offences referred in Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Sec. 195 Cr.P.C. The Registry will enclose a copy of this order also along with the notice issued under Sec.340 Cr.P.C. to the persons mentioned above.
4) The Registry will give a separate number to the Sec.340 Cr.P.C. proceedings in accordance with law and post the case on 23.1.2023 for the appearance of the additional 3rd respondent and other persons mentioned above. Advocate Dheerendrakrishnan K.K is appointed as Amicus curiae to assist the court during the preliminary enquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C. Registry will show the name of the Amicus curiae in the cause list.
5) Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgement to the Administrator, Union Territory of Lakshadweep forthwith.
2. The review petitions are filed stating that there are apparent errors on the face of the record; therefore, the judgment is to be reviewed.
3. Heard Sr.Counsel, Sri.S.Sreekumar instructed by Adv.P. Sanjay. I also heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for Lakshadweep Administration, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the High Court of Kerala and also the petitioners in the original petitions. This Court also heard Advocate Dheerendrakrishnan, the Amicus curiae appointed by this Court as per the judgment impugned in the review petitions. An argument note is also filed by the review petitioner.
4. The main contention raised by the review petitioner in these review petitions is that, there are errors apparent on the face of the record and hence the judgment is to be reviewed. It is also stated that, in view of Article 235 of the Constitution of India, the Administrator of Lakshadweep has no disciplinary power over a judicial officer and only this Court has control over subordinate courts. The review petitioner also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Inder Prakash Anand [AIR 1976 SC 1841] and also the Rajendra Singh Verma (Dead) through LRs v. Lt. Governor of NCT Delhi [2011 (10) SCC 1]. The review petitioner also submitted that, he is not liable to be proceeded in the light of Sec.3(1) of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 and hence, the notice issued by this Court under Sec.340 Cr.P.C. to the review petitioner for conducting a preliminary enquiry is unsustainable. The review petitioner also relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in A.R.Antulay v. R.S.Nayak and another [AIR 1988 SC 1531], Anowar Hussain
A.R.Antulay v. R.S.Nayak and another
Anowar Hussain v. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee and others
Divisional Forest Officer v. Cherian
G.S.Nagmoti v. State of Mysore
Kizhakkekkara Thomas v. State of Kerala and another
Kokers 70 MM Movie House v. Kerala State Electricity Board
Pookunju A. V. State of Kerala and others
Puran Singh v. State of Punjab
Rajendra Singh Verma (Dead) through LRs v. Lt. Governor of NCT Delhi
Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department and others V. Aswathy Elsa Mathew
State of Assam v. Ranga Muhammad and others AIR 1967 SC 903
State of Haryana v. Inder Prakash Anand
State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra and Others AIR 1968 SC 647
State of West Bengal v. Nripendranath Bagchi
Thakur Jugal Kishore Sinha v. The Sitamarhi Central Cooperative Bank Ltd.
SupremeToday
: Authority competent to impose penalty of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank alone is supposed to arrive at provisional conclusion in regard to penalty to be imposed after enquiry against Gover....
Judicial officers must maintain high standards of integrity; dismissal under Article 311(2)(b) upheld due to misconduct and impracticability of inquiry.
The main legal point established in the given judgment is the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary inquiries and the principles of proportionality and the Wednesbury rule.
Judicial officers must maintain impeccable integrity; disciplinary actions must be based on established misconduct without procedural violations and adhere to high standards of justice.
The judgment emphasized the need for clarifying the territorial jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226(2) in relation to challenges against orders passed by the Chairman, CAT, Principal Bench,....
The court affirmed the principle that judicial review of administrative actions in disciplinary processes is limited to procedural correctness, not evidential review, and mandated reconsideration of ....
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice in disciplinary inquiries, asserting that findings must be supported by adequate evidence and fair procedures.
Judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited; courts cannot reassess evidence or interfere unless findings are arbitrary or unsupported by evidence.
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.