IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 17TH JANUARY 2011 / 27TH POUSHA 1932 RP.No. 645 of 2010(S) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.27156/2006 Dated 24/02/2010 .................... PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------- M.S.BALAN, S/O.SABARI, AGED 58 YEARS, PRESENTLY WORKING AS SUPERINTENDENT, E.S.I.CORPORATION,SUB REGIONAL OFFICE,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. THE CHAIRMAN, STANDING COMMITTEE, EMPLOYEES INSURANCE CORPORATION, HEADQUATERS OFFICE, PANCHDEEP BHAVAN, KOTIA ROAD, NEW DELHI. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, E.S.I.CORPORATION, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, PANCHDEEP BHAVAN, KOTIA ROAD, NEW DELHI. 3. THE INSURANCE COMMISSIONR, E.S.I. CORPORATION, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, PANCHDEEP BHAVAN,KOTIA ROAD, NEW DELHI. 4. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, E.S.I.CORPORATION REGIONAL OFFICE, PANCHDEEP BHAVAN, SWARAJ ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI. T.V.AJAYAKUMAR, SC, ESI CORPORATION THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ----------------------------------- R.P.No.645 of 2010 IN W.P(C).No.27156 OF 2006 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of January, 2011 O R D E R Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,J. This review petition is by the respondent in the writ petition filed by the ESI Corporation against a decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal. He faced disciplinary proceedings on two counts. The enquiry officer found him guilty on one count. The disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings of the enquiry authority regarding the ground on which the delinquent was found to be innocent. The delinquent was notified of such disagreement. He showed cause. Still, the superior authority, whose competence is not under challenge, confirmed that the delinquent was guilty of both the charges, though for different reasons. The delinquent working with the ESI Corporation was charged of having taken Rs.2,000/- from an insured person and returned only Rs.1,000/-. He was also alleged to have released maternity leave benefits to a woman insured person in three instalments RP.645/10 2 rather ran in lump. On findings of facts, when the delinquent was found guilty, he was essentially holding office of trust in the ESI Corporation. He was dealing with funds which are provided under a social welfare net in terms of the Constitution and the laws. Therefore, in our view, the Tribunal had erred in interfering with the punishment, which, to the good fortune of the delinquent, was only reduction of pay by two stages with cumulative effect. For reasons stated in the judgment sought to be reviewed, we reversed the findings in the order of the Tribunal. Having heard the counsel, we do not find any error apparent on the face of the record of the order or any other reason, warranting exercise of power of review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The review petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- P.S.GOPINATHAN, Judge. kkb.20/1.