IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2010 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 2024 of 2010(C) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- S.KRISHNA MENON, "SAI LEKSHMI", VP.14/83, VELALNADU P.O., VELLANADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 543. BY ADVS. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR SMT.SREELATHA PARAMESWARAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF ADVANCED COMPUTING, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, POST BOX NO.6520, VELLAYAMBALAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033. 2. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, (DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY), POST BOX NO.6520, VELLAYAMBALAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C) NO. 2024/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY DATED 20/11/2009. P2 COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ARTICLES OF CHARGES FRAMED AGAINST THE PETITIONER. P3 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 26/2/2009. P4 COPY OF THE WRITTEN RESPONSE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. P5 COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF DEFENCE OF THE PETITIONER. P6 COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 23/9/2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.2024 Of 2010 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by the penalty imposed as per Exhibit P1 after conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. Exhibit P6 is the copy of the enquiry report. The challenge in this Writ Petition is against Exhibits P1 and P6. 2. Various grounds have been raised in the Writ Petition with regard to the sufficiency of evidence, the findings in the enquiry report and the conclusion made by the Disciplinary Authority in Exhibit P1. It is contended that, at any rate, the charges are not sustainable and the punishment imposed is not justifiable. 3. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent and the learned Government Pleader. It is submitted by the 2nd respondent in the counter affidavit and the learned Standing Counsel in his arguments that the petitioner has got an effective remedy of appeal under Rule 23(2) of the Central Civil Service(Classification, Control and Appeal)Rules. It is averred in the counter affidavit that the appeal is an effective statutory W.P.(C)No.2024/10 -2- remedy provided under the Rules and the Writ Petition therefore is not maintainable. In paragraph No.6 of the counter affidavit it is mentioned that the Director General of C-DAC having its office at Pune is the appellate authority. 4. Since the petitioner is challenging the very basis of the disciplinary enquiry as well as the finding of the enquiry report and the punishment imposed, it is only proper that he challenges the same by filing an appeal under the above said provision. Therefore, if the petitioner files an appeal along with a copy of this judgment, within a period of one month from today, the same will be entertained by the appellate authority and the appeal will be considered on merits after hearing the petitioner expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the appeal. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/-( T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) dsn