Disciplinary actions require clear misconduct to impose penalties on government servants; mere claims of vague charges do not suffice to annul actions.

J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The petitioner, who is working as Selection Grade Assistant in the Vigilance Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, has filed this writ petition seeking to quash Exts.P22 and P25 and to declare that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner is illegal.

2. The petitioner states that he was appointed as an Assistant on 08.12.2007 in the office of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur, pursuant to an advice given by the Kerala Public Service Commission. As per Ext.P1 Special Rules for the post of Assistant, the appointing authority is the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, who will be the disciplinary authority also.

3. The petitioner was transferred and posted in the Vigilance Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram under the 6^th respondent. Thereafter, the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur issued Ext.P4 memo dated 03.10.2018 seeking explanation. The petitioner submitted Ext.P5 explanation.

4. The 5^th respondent forwarded the explanation to the 4^th respondent-Registrar of the Kerala High Court as per Ext.P7. It was alleged that the petitioner had made snide remarks and unwarranted statements about the inspection team of the High Court. The 4^th respondent- Registrar required the 2^nd respondent-Additional Chief Secretary to take appropriate action against the petitioner for propagating falsehood about the institution.

5. The Government considered the explanation submitted by the petitioner and was of the opinion that the officer has violated the office decorum and that his explanation is unbecoming of a government servant. Therefore, the Government decided to take disciplinary action for imposing major penalty on the petitioner as per the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960. A memo of charges dated 23.06.2020 was served on the petitioner. The petitioner gave his written statement of defence. After giving an opportunity of personal hearing, the respondents decided to proceed against the petitioner. The Manager of the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram was appointed as inquiring authority.

6. After conducting the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer concluded that all the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. The Government accepted the findings of the inquiring authority and took a tentative decision to withhold three annual increments of the petitioner with cumulative effect. The petitioner was served with a copy of the enquiry report and was given opportunity to represent against the proposal. After hearing the petitioner and after considering all facts, the Government issued Ext.P22 order dated 08.07.2022 imposing on the petitioner the punishment of withholding three annual increments with cumulative effect.

7. The petitioner filed Ext.P23 Review Petition as per Ext.P24. The petitioner submitted that during his entire period of service, he had not acted against the reputation of the Department or committed any deed unbecoming of a government servant. The petitioner stated that he had no intention to demean or belittle the status or jurisdiction of any authorities including the High Court. The petitioner requested to review the punishment imposed.

8. The 1^st respondent considered the Review Petition filed by the petitioner. The 1^st respondent held that the petitioner has acted in a manner unbecoming of a government servant. The remarks made by the petitioner regarding inspections cannot be justified under any circumstances. If such misconduct is tolerated, it will be against the interest of the administration. The 1^st respondent rejected the Review Petition as per Ext.P25 order dated

10.03.2023.

9.