IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2011 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 28477 of 2011(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- A.SAHARI, UPPER DIVISION CLERK, MUNSIFF COURT, VARKALA. BY ADV. SRI.N.DHARMADAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT: --------------- THE REGISTRAR (SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY), HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER, SRI.E.M. ABDUL KHADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 28477 of 2011(R) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P-1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 4.10.2010 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. EXT.P-2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 16.10.2008 OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P-3 TRUE COPY OF MEMO OF CHARGE DT.23.6.2008 OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P-4 TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT DT.6.1.2009 BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P-5 TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITIONS OF THE WITNESSES. EXT.P-6 TRUE COPY OF ENQUIRY REPORT DT.22.4.2009 BY THE ENQUIRY OFFICER. EXT.P-7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.7.9.2009 OF THE DIST.JUDGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON,J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 28477 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging the correctness and sustainability of the punishment imposed in the disciplinary proceedings. 2. The petitioner was working as UDC in the Munsiff's Court, Varkala and on coming across delinquency in discharging the duties, he was proceeded against. The enquiry conducted against the petitioner established the guilt and the petitioner accordingly was punished by imposing a penalty of barring three increments with cumulative effect as borne by Ext.P2 order dated 16.10.2008 of the District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, who is the disciplinary authority. Challenging the said proceedings, the petitioner approached the appellate authority and after considering the appeal, the punishment was modified and it was reduced as withholding of two increments without cumulative effect. It is however stated in Ext.P1 that dereliction or misconduct on the part of the employee in future will be dealt WP(C) No. 28477 of 2011 -:2:- with very sternly. The petitioner is stated as very much aggrieved of the same; more particularly the last sentence in the order as mentioned above. 3. Sri.N.Dharmadan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the witnessess examined before the enquiry officer, i.e. DW1 to DW3, have given testimony in favour of the petitioner and that the entire responsibility actually vested on another person by name V.P. Pushparajan. It is further stated that the actual culprit was working in the office of the enquiry officer and that the petitioner has been made a scapegoat. 4. On going through the materials on record, it is seen that, the enquiry has been conducted in accordance with the relevant provisions of law and adhering to the principles of natural justice. A copy of the enquiry report marked as Ext.P6 had already been served on the petitioner, giving an opportunity to prove the innocence. It was after considering the entire materials that, Ext.P7 order was passed by the disciplinary authority awarding the punishment by barring three increments WP(C) No. 28477 of 2011 -:3:- with cumulative effect. On filing appeal, the respondent considered the entire matter with reference to the question of law as well as the question of facts raised and confirmed the finding on guilt. However, considering the particular facts and circumstances, taking a lenient approach, the major punishment imposed on the petitioner was modified changing the same as withholding of two increments without cumulative effect. 5. This Court finds that there is no infringement of any statutory prescription or violation of the principles of natural justice. So also, the finding on fact arrived at by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority does not warrant interference by this Court as a fact finding agency. More over, Ext.P1 order passed by the respondent is dated 04.10.2010 and the petitioner approached this Court only after one year, on 25.10.2011 and the cause of action has become stale. On this score also, no interference is warranted. However, taking note of the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the last sentence in Ext.P1 i.e. “It has also been made clear that any kind of dereliction or misconduct on the part of the appellant in WP(C) No. 28477 of 2011 -:4:- future will be dealt with very sternly” is quite unnecessary, this Court finds that the petitioner need not have any apprehension in this regard, so long as his actions are transparent and above board. It goes without saying that any misconduct by any employee is liable to be taken serious note of by appropriate authority, to be proceeded in accordance with law. The observation made in Ext.P1 is only of a 'general application' and that it does not cast any pre-concerned insinuation on the conduct of the petitioner. In the above circumstances, interference is declined and the Writ Petition is dismissed. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE ttb