Judicial review under Article 226 limited to natural justice violations or perversity; promotion denial during penalty is consequence, not double punishment.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition, being aggrieved by the imposition of punishment and the subsequent rejection of his appeal, revision, and review. Furthermore, the petitioner challenges the non-consideration of the representation marked as Ext.P12.

2. It is the petitioner's case that while serving as a Shed Foreman prior to his retirement on 30.09.2016, he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings which resulted in the imposition of a punishment of withholding three increments with cumulative effect for three years.

3. The allegations leading to this punishment arose from an incident on 29.07.2011 during the third-shift night duty (10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.). It is alleged that, in his capacity as Shed Foreman, the petitioner countersigned Vehicle Ticket No. 001170, dated 29.07.2011, for 33 pieces of imported cargo steel plates discharged from MV East Star (berthed at Q9, Ernakulam Wharf). These plates were delivered and loaded onto a trailer bearing registration number KL-07-AW-6514, whereas the actual quantity discharged was 35 pieces of steel plates.

4. Initially, as part of the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide Ext.P1 order dated 30.07.2011. Subsequently, a memo of charges and a statement of allegations were issued, to which the petitioner submitted his reply via Ext.P3.

5. An enquiry officer was thereafter appointed to investigate the charges. The enquiry was conducted by the 2^nd respondent on 14.10.2011, and a report was prepared on 23.11.2011. The report concluded that the charges levelled against the officer were admitted, and the statements of witnesses and evidence presented further corroborated the same; accordingly, the charges were held to be proved. Consequently, by Ext.P5, a punishment of withholding three increments of pay for a period of three years with cumulative effect was imposed.

6. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Chairman (Ext.P6), which was rejected via a speaking order (Ext.P7). A subsequent review preferred before the Chairman was also rejected via Ext.P9. Later, the petitioner approached the Traffic Manager to point out certain anomalies arising from the imposition of the penalty; however, this was not forwarded to the Chairman upon a finding that it lacked merit. Under these circumstances, the petitioner preferred another representation before the Chairman and now seeks to set aside Exts. P1, P5, P7, P9, and P11, while also seeking consideration of the representation marked Ext.P12.

7. In response to these contentions, a counter-affidavit has been filed wherein it is admitted that the petitioner was suspended with effect from 30.07.2011. It is further stated that the petitioner responded to the memo of charges and statement of allegations via Ext.P3 explanation dated 19.08.2011, in which he admitted to the misconduct and expressed regret. Thereafter, the suspension was revoked—without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings—and the period of suspension was treated as "no duty."

8. Thereafter, pursuant to Regulation 12 of the Cochin Port Employees (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Regulations, 1964, the 2^nd respondent was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. The enquiry was conducted in accordance with the prescribed rules, regulations, and the principles of natural justice, culminating in the submission of the Ext.P4 report dated 23.11.2011. The report concluded that the charges levelled against the petitioner were duly proved.

9. Following the submission of the report, the