IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 27TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 32548 of 2006(S) ---------------------------------------- OA.247/2004 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF LABOUR, NEW DELHI. 2. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-1, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE ADDITIONAL CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, (SOUTH ZONE) REGIONAL OFFICE, 3-4-763, BARKATPURA, HYDERABAD, ANDHRA PRADESH. BY ADVS. MR.N.N. SUGUNAPALAN, SC, P.F. SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC,EPF ORGANISATION RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- P.M.SYED MUHAMMED, UPPER DIVISION CLERK, SUB REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. R1 BY ADV. MR.VELLAYANI SUNDARARAJU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.32548/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ORIGINAL APPLICATION VIZ. OA. NO.247/04 WITH ITS ANNEXURES A1 TO A6 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM DTD. 11.8.06 IN OA. NO.247/04. P3:- COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN OA. NO.247/04. ANNEXURE A:- COPY OF THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND STAFF (CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL & APPEAL) RULES, 1971. TRUE COPY P.S.TO JUDGE tss THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.32548 of 2006-S. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 16th day of February, 2010. J U D G M E N T Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. The respondent, an employee of the Employees' Provident Fund, was proceeded against on certain counts of indiscipline. Allegedly, he threw garbage on the road in front of the quarters. The enquiry officer found that throwing of garbage in front of the quarters has not been disputed. Resultantly, punishment of barring of one increment without cumulative effect was imposed. The respondent, unfortunately for him, appealed against that. The appellate authority invoking the statutory rules which enables escalating the punishment, handed down the major penalty of reduction in rank to the pay of Lower Division Clerk for a period of three years. The Tribunal set aside that enhancement of punishment and sustained the decision WP(C).No.32548 of 2006-S. -: 2 :- of the original authority. With the available materials on record and the decision taken by the Tribunal and also having due regard to the facts and circumstances, we do not find any jurisdictional error or legal infirmity warranting interference. The writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN (Judge) P.S.GOPINATHAN (Judge) Kvs/-