Procedural defects in disciplinary proceedings undermine legality, mandating remittance to the disciplinary authority for compliance with established rules.

J U D G M E N T

Alexander Thomas, J.

The afore-captioned Original Petition instituted under Articles

226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the impugned Ext.P5 final order rendered by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram on 29.03.2023 disposing of the instant Original Application, O.A.No.1349/2022.

2. The petitioners herein are the respondents in the Original Application. The sole respondent herein is the sole applicant in the Original Application.

3. Heard Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners in the Original Petition and Sri.Renju Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent herein.

4. The prayers in Ext.P1 Original Application, O.A.

No.1349/2022 filed by the respondent herein before the Tribunal, are as follows:

“(i) To set aside Annexure A2 Memo of Charges, Anneaxuer-A6 Show Cause Notice, Annexure A10 order confirming the punishment and Annexure A13 Order rejecting A11 review application issued by the 2nd and 1st respondents.

(ii) To declare that the disciplinary proceedings finalised against the applicant vide Annexure-A10 is arbitrary, illegal, unjust and is in violation of natural justice.

(iii) To declare that the Annexure-A6 Show Cause Notice, Annexure

10 Final Order and Annexure-A13 review order suffer from unfairness, malafides and are issued without application of mind and not a reasoned decision.

(iv) To declare that the Minister of PWD has no authority to order or award punishment to the Applicant by stepping into the shoes of the 3rd respondent Disciplinary Authority.

(v) To declare that the rejection of Annexure-A5 enquiry report as per Annexure-A12(a) and prescribing punishment without citing reasons is illegal, unjust, arbitrary and unfair.

(vi) To set aside Annexure-A13 order rejecting the Annexure-A11 review application as it is not a reasoned decision.”

5. The Tribunal after hearing both sides, has rendered the impugned Ext.P5 final order on 29.03.2023 disposing of the instant O.A. No.1349/2022, with the finding that the impugned penalty award to the applicant is in gross violation to the provisions contained in Rule 15 of the KCS (CC&A) Rules especially Sub Rule 12(i)(a) and (14) and so the same is illegal and unsustainable and has accordingly set aside Annexures-A10 and A13. The Tribunal has taken the view that ordinarily in cases of this nature, the matter should have been remitted to the competent disciplinary authority to start from the stage of consideration of enquiry report etc. But that in view of the stand taken by the higher authority as evident from Annexure-A12(a) File Note of the Minister, there is no point in again remitting the matter, to the Government. Thus, there is no liberty for the respondents in the O.A. to reconsider the matter from the stage of issuance of show-cause notice and the enquiry report, even though, the grounds of interference by the Tribunal are on procedural impropriety and not on the basis of merits.

6. We have heard both sides and consider the pleadings and materials on record. After hearing both sides, we are of the view that the approach made by this Court in the judgment dated 05.07.2023 in O.P. (KAT) No.276/2023, arising out of the final order dated 09.12.2022 of the Tribunal in O.A.No.1959/2021, which was in the case of a co- delinquent, with similar issues, could be adopted in this case. Therein, as per the judgment dated 05.07.2023 in O.P.(KAT) No.276/2023, we had held that though the Tribunal was justified in holding the impugned decision making process, which led to the impugned penalty issued by the State Government, is correct. We further held that the approach made by the Tribunal, in not remitting the matter is not legally correct and proper. Accordingly, in that case this Division Bench had quashed the penalty order as well as the impugned show-cause notice made by the disciplinary authority and had remitted the matter to the disciplinary authority to start from the