An appeal lacks merit when the lower court justly addresses jurisdiction of suspension and regularizes the period in the interest of public service.

JUDGMENT Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J Heard C.M. Appln. Nos. 776 and 777 of 2018 for condonation of representation delay and delay in filing the writ appeal. The appeal has been filed with a representation delay of 11 days and delay of 300 days in filing the writ appeal. Having perused the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the applications for condonation of delay, we are satisfied that sufficient cause has been made out. Accordingly, the delays are condoned, and the writ appeal is taken up for final hearing.

2. The present intra-court appeal, filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 , assails the judgment dated 04.07.2017 passed in W.P.(C) No. 1661 of 2007, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent was disposed of.

3. The appellants herein were the respondents in the writ petition. In the writ petition, the respondent sought the following reliefs:

“i. to issue a writ of Certiorari or other writ or order or direction calling for the records leading upto Ext. P10 and quash Ext.P10.

ii. to issue a declaration that the Asst.Executive Engineer (in-charge) has no jurisdiction to suspend the nor he is empowered to do so on behalf of es petitioner, the Executive Engineer, Electrical Section Kottarakkara who also has no jurisdiction and hence the order Ext.P10 is without jurisdiction.

iii. to issue a writ of mandamus or other writ or order directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to Join duty at Electrical Section Kottarakkara on the basis of Ext. P7 notwithstanding Ext. P10.

iv. to issue such other further reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.

Additional Relief (v):

v. Calling for the records leading up to Ext P12 order dt. 12.5.2007 and quash the same.

Additional Reliefs "vi":

vi. or to issue a writ of certiorari or other writ order calling for the records leading upto Exhibit P15, Exhibit P17 show cause notice and Exhibit P19 order of penalty and Exhibit P22 Appellate Order and quash the same.

Additional Relief " vii":

vii. to issue a declaration that the petitioner is innocent of the charges leveled against him and not liable to be punished and that the suspension period is liable to be treated as duty for all purpose.”

4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the learned Single Judge erred in treating the period of suspension as having been spent on duty and as qualifying for pensionable service, though pay and allowances for the said period were not granted. It was further contended that the learned Single Judge, without properly appreciating the factual and legal aspects of the matter, passed the impugned judgment erroneously.

4.1 The charges levelled against the first respondent in the memorandum of charges include assault, threatening and attempting to manhandle a superior officer while on duty, deliberately delaying the rectification of complaints made by several consumers, and exhibiting a negative attitude in obeying the orders of superior officers. All these acts, according to the appellants, amount to misconduct, dereliction of duty, and insubordination, thereby tarnishing the image of the Board in the eyes of the public.

4.2 The penalty of withholding three increments with cumulative effect was imposed on the first respondent. However, in appeal, the said order was modified and restricted to the stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. Still, the gravity of the misconduct remains unaltered. Therefore, the learned Single Judge ought not to have regularised the period of suspension as regular service for the purpose of pensionary benefits and other retiral dues.

Per contra

5. , learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposed the appeal and submitted that the learne