IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2008 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1930 WA.No. 1141 of 2008() ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.5762/2004 Dated 26/11/2007 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------- RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 56, S/O.KALIKUTTY, SREEBHAVAN, NJARAKKAL, ANCHALAMMOODU, PERUNADU, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVACIS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B. KOSHY & P.N. RAVINDRAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- W.A.NO.1141 OF 2008-E ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of June, 2008. JUDGMENT Ravindran, J: The petitioner in W.P.(C).No.5762 of 2004 is the appellant. The appellant was working as the Central Nazir of the District Court, Kollam during the period from 3.3.1994 to 28.3.1996. A notice issued by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India to the third respondent in C.A.No.2686 of 1989 was forwarded by this Court for service on that respondent to the District Court, Kollam on 17.11.1995. The appellant received the said notice on 24.11.1995. Since the notice was not returned to this Court after service, a letter was sent from this Court on 31.1.1997. Thereafter the notice was traced out and served. The appellant's explanation was sought by the District Judge. In his explanation the appellant admitted having received the notice issued by the Apex Court. He, however, took the stand that he had entrusted the notice with the Amin on duty for entering the details in the A register and that the Amin misplaced the notice. As the reply submitted by the appellant was not satisfactory, the District Judge, Kollam initiated disciplinary WA.NO.1141/08 . 2 proceedings against him. Sri.K.George Oomen, the Additional Sub Judge, was appointed as the enquiry authority. The enquiry authority issued Ext.P1 memo of charges dated 2.2.1998. The appellant submitted his written statement of defense and participated in the enquiry. The report of the enquiry authority is evidenced by Ext.P2. In Ext.P2 the enquiry authority found that the appellant who received the notice issued by the Apex Court on 24.11.1995 did not take any follow up action. The appellant was found guilty of the charge levelled against him. Thereafter by Ext.P3 order dated 18.3. 1999 the District Judge, Kollam/the disciplinary authority imposed on the appellant the punishment of withholding of increments for three years with cumulative effect. The appellant submitted an appeal to this Court. By Ext.P4 order passed on 27.7.2001 the said appeal was dismissed. The appellant thereupon filed the writ petition challenging Exts.P3 and P4. By judgment delivered on 26.11.2007 the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this appeal. 2. We have heard Sri.S. Sanal Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. it is evident from the findings of the enquiry authority that there was a grave dereliction of duty on the WA.NO.1141/08 . 3 part of the appellant in the discharge of his duty. It has been proved in the enquiry that the appellant's case that had entrusted the notice with the Amin is incorrect. It has come out in the enquiry that no entry was made in the A register by the appellant though he admitted having received the notice on 24.11.1995. The evidence adduced in the enquiry conclusively establishes that the appellant who had admittedly received the notice issued by the Apex Court in C.A.No.2686 of 1989 did not take steps to have the notice served on the 3rd respondent therein. Considering the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority and the order passed in the appeal by this Court, we are satisfied that no grounds have been made out warranting interference with the decision of the learned Single Judge. From the materials on records, it is not possible to hold that the finding of the enquiry authority/disciplinary authority is in any way perverse. The writ appeal accordingly fails and it is dismissed. J.B. KOSHY, JUDGE. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. cl WA.NO.1141/08 . 4