Disciplinary actions must consider the immediacy of instructions provided and prior exoneration of employees from negligence, ensuring fairness in proceedings.

JUDGMENT

Since common issues are involved in these writ petitions, they are heard and disposed of together.

2. Matter relates to the imposition of penalty on the petitioners, who are employees of the Cochin Port Trust. The issue which led to the imposition of such penalty is detailed as follows: On 18.02.2015 evening at about 6.00 p.m., the petitioners got information from the Wharf Superintendent of Mattanchery Wharf that the Chairman of the Port Trust has given instructions to allot overflow shed to M/s. Malabar Cements on the next day and requested to close the doors and repair the AC sheet roofings and also to clean the floor. Petitioner in W.P(C) No.8493 of 2018 conveyed the instruction of the Chairman to the executive engineer, and he entrusted the MEC contractor to arrange workers to do the work. Petitioner has also given instructions to the Junior Engineer and foreman to do the necessary to execute the work. On 19.02.2015, while carrying out the work of cleaning the floors of OSF No.5 for stacking clinker, a portion of the sliding door accidentally fell down, two labourers of the MEC Contractor were trapped underneath, and one of them succumbed to the injuries.

W.P(C) No.8493 of 2018

3. Petitioner in W.P(C) No.8493 of 2018, who was working as Assistant Engineer at the relevant point of time, based on Ext.P1, which prescribes the duties of the Assistant Engineer, submits that he was having only a general supervisory duty and, on knowing about the incident, took immediate steps to transfer the injured to the hospital. By Ext.P2, the petitioner intimated the incident to the Chief Engineer, and the Executive Engineer was also informed of the same. Ext.P4 is the report of the safety officer attached to the Port Trust, who referred to the same as an unfortunate incident. While so, by Ext.P5, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, alleging that he had neglected work and shown negligence in the performance of duty. Petitioner submitted Ext.P6 reply to Ext.P5 memorandum and articles of charge wherein it is submitted that he was having only general supervisory work and that necessary instructions were given to the Junior Engineer, Asst. Foreman and Chargemen, who were having direct supervision of the work. By Ext.P7, the charge was amended, making the petitioner liable for the total expenditure incurred for the treatment and ex gratia granted to the deceased labourer, to which Ext.P8 written statement was filed. Thereafter, by Ext.P9, enquiry officer was appointed. Even after the enquiry was completed, no report was served on the petitioner; instead, he was served with an order dated 28.10.2016 ordering a re-enquiry against the petitioner and others. In the meantime, the petitioner has approached this Court, filing W.P(C) No.35264 of 2015 with respect to the denial of promotion due to the alleged incident and pursuant to a direction issued by this Court, Ext.P10 enquiry report was served on the petitioner, in which it was found that the charge against the petitioner is not proved. The order of re-enquiry was stayed by the Court and directed the respondent to pass a final order in the disciplinary proceedings. Thereafter, Ext.P11 memorandum, along with the enquiry report and the decision of the 3^rd respondent disagreeing with the report and finding the petitioner guilty of the charges, was served. Ext.P12 explanation was submitted and thereafter Ext.P13 order was issued imposing a punishment of reduction of pay by one stage in the time scale of pay for a period of one year without cumulative effect and treating the period of such suspension as non-duty for all purposes other than pension and to recover Rs.1,07,939/- towards the pecuniary loss suffered by the respondents towards treatment of the injured and ex gratia given to the legal heirs of the deceased. An appeal was preferred, which was dismissed as per Ext.P15, and it is aggrieved by the same that the present writ petition has been filed.

4. A detailed c