The ruling clarifies that an interpretation of internal rules does not set a binding precedent and outlines due process in disciplinary actions.

JUDGMENT

P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,J This intra-court appeal is filed by respondents 1 to 7 in W.P.

(C)No.1734/2019, challenging the judgment dated 14.07.2025, allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent herein, in part.

2. The respondent herein/writ petitioner was working as a Senior Deputy General Manager(Production) in Cochin division of the Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'FACT,' for short). While so, he was visited with disciplinary proceedings leading to Ext.P6 order, imposing a penalty of censure. Even though the respondent herein challenged the same by filing an appeal, the same ended in dismissal. The disciplinary authority had found the respondent guilty of misconduct under Rule 17 of The Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Limited Employees' (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short). It is challenging the disciplinary proceedings and the afore Rule, the respondent herein filed the writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

“i) To strike down Rule 17 (c) and the explanation provided after Rule 17 (d) of FACT CDA Rules as unconstitutional as violative of Articles 14,15 and 21 of the Constitution of India;

ii) To declare that Rule 17 (c) and the explanation provided after Rule 17 (d) of FACT CDA Rules is unconstitutional as violative of Articles 14,15 and 21 of the Constitution of India;

iii) To issue a writ of certiorari quashing Exts.P1,P4,P6 and P8 as unjust, illegal and arbitrary.”

3. The learned single judge, after considering the materials on record and hearing both sides, allowed the writ petition in part and the proceedings taken against the respondent by relying on Rule 17 (b) and (c) of the Rules was set aside.

4. Heard Adv.M.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Adv.Thulasi.K.Raj, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the only grievance of the appellants is regarding the interpretation given by the learned single judge to Rule 17 of the Rules. He submitted that Rule 17 had been framed in conformity with the guidelines issued by the Department of Public Enterprises and the interpretation given by the learned single judge will have wide ramification since, it will effectively collapse the model rules also. He further submitted that the interpretation given by the learned single judge will also lead to the employees indulging in unlawful financial transactions, on the guise of loan and that the said interpretation is incorrect.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment and contended that there are no grounds to interfere with the same. She submitted that the Rule is meant to apply for persons or firms having official dealings with the employees and not to the transactions of the employees inter se.

7. It is to be taken note that the learned single judge, while disposing of the writ petition has not allowed the prayer of the respondent/writ petitioner seeking declaration of Rule 17 of the Rules, as unconstitutional and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Instead, the learned single judge has only set aside the punishment imposed on the respondent, by interpreting Rule 17 of the Rules in his favour. As stated earlier, the appellants are only aggrieved by the interpretation given to Rule 17 (b) & (c). It is also pertinent to note that the respondent/writ petitioner has not filed any writ appeal challenging the impugned judgment, in so far as it negated the relief sought by him for declaring Rule 17 (b) & (c) as unconstitutional. If so, in the light of the afore facts and circumstances, we do not deem it fit to probe deep int