Judicial review in disciplinary proceedings focuses on procedural fairness and adherence to natural justice rather than the merits of the decision or the quantum of punishment.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is presently working as a Junior Superintendent in the Office of the Munsiff Court, Alappuzha. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on the allegation that while working as Bench Clerk in the Additional District Court and Sessions Court-I, Alappuzha, he left the office at about 3 p.m. on 29.08.2017 and did not attend the office during the remaining working hours. The enquiry was proceeded with, and on its culmination, the petitioner was imposed with a penalty of withholding one increment due on 7/2021 with cumulative effect. Though an appeal was preferred under Rule 23 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules,1960, the Appellate Authority confirmed the order imposing penalty and thereby dismissed the appeal. The above orders are under challenge in this Writ Petition.

2. A summary of the case can be sketched as under:

a) On 29.08.2017, at about 3 p.m., the petitioner herein, while working as Bench Clerk, Grade-I, Additional District Court-I, Alappuzha left the office at 3 p.m. without availing leave and without informing the Judicial Officer. He failed to attend the office during the remaining working hours.

b) The petitioner was served with a notice calling for his explanation. A preliminary enquiry was conducted and a report dated 09.07.2018 was obtained as per which, prima facie, the allegations were found to be true. An inquiry officer was later appointed, and a formal enquiry was ordered. A report was submitted on 30.11.2018 by Sub-Judge Chengannur, and the punishment of barring one increment with cumulative effect was imposed.

c) The matter was taken in appeal. The Appellate Authority, on an appraisal of the materials, found that the report of enquiry had not been furnished to the petitioner before the enquiry report was accepted by the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority was ordered to restart the proceedings afresh from the stage at which the disciplinary authority received the enquiry report from the enquiry officer. Directions were issued to pass orders afresh after curing the material irregularities and after providing an opportunity to be heard to the petitioner.

3. In compliance with the directions issued by the Appellate Authority, the District Judge issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner herein on 30.01.2020 proposing a penalty of reduction to a lower rank in the seniority list. Before issuing the show cause notice, a copy of the formal enquiry report was also served on the petitioner. However, by proceedings dated 19.02.2020, the notice dated 30.1.2020 was withdrawn. The petitioner was heard on 28.02.2020, and after considering the written submissions filed by him, a show cause notice was issued proposing penalty of reduction to a lower rank in the seniority list by placing him as the junior most of the Junior Superintendents in the Alappuzha District.

4. The petitioner responded by raising various contentions to the above show-cause notice. After hearing the petitioner, the disciplinary authority imposed a penalty of withholding one increment due on 7/2021 with cumulative effect upon the petitioner.

5. Challenging the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority, after exhaustively considering the sequence of events, the records, and the order imposing the penalty, rejected the appeal holding that the penalty of barring one increment with cumulative effect does not warrant any interference. The above orders are challenged in this writ petition.

6. I have heard Smt. Thulasi K. Raj, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

7. Smt. Thulasi K. Raj, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the enquiry proceedings were beset with various irregularities, and it was in the said circumstances that the appellate authority had interfered at the first instance by issuing Ext.P6 order. However, without exonerating the petitioner, directions were issued t