IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 3RD OCTOBER 2011 / 11TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 20268 of 2011(G) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SHEENA. P, ASST.ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, ELECTRICAL INSPECTORATE, NINAN COMPLEX, METTUPALAYAM STREET, PALAKKAD-678 001 BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA SMT.RASHMI RAVINDRAN SMT.D.S.THUSHARA RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN- 695 001 * (THE WORD "CHAIRMAN" IS CORRECTED AS "SECRETARY" AS PER ORDER DATED 19.08.11 IN I.A. 12770/11) 2. TH DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PALAKKAD-678 001 3. T.A.SHAMEER, ASSISTANT, DISTRICT PSC OFFICE, PALAKKAD-678 001 R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.20268/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE K.P.S.C.DATED 1/10/2010. P2 COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES AT THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE PSC WITH INSTRUCTION DATED 23/11/2010. P3 COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET ISSUED BY THE P.S.C. 28/6/2011. P4 COPY OF THE IDENTIFICATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE PSC P5 COPY OF THE INFORMATION DOWN LOADED FROM THE NET ISSUED BY THE PSC DEBARRING THE PETITIONER AND WITHHOLDING HER RESULTS. P6 COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 10/5/2011. P7 COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 26/5/2011. P8 COPY OF THE APPLICATION OF SRI.ULLAS DATED 11/5/2011. P9 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SENT BY THE PSC DATED 24/5/2011. P10 COPY OF THE INFORMATION DATED 10/6/2011. P11 COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 30/5/2011 FILED BY SRI.ULLAS P12 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 24/6/2011 P13 COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BY THE PSC IN RESPECT OF THE PSC EXAMINATIONS. P14 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PSC DATED 27/12/2010. P15 COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE PSC DATED 10/8/2011 P16 COPY OF THE POSTAL COVER CONTAINS EXT.P15 P17 COPY OF THE DETAILS DOWNLOADED FROM THE NET REGARDING THE POSTAL ARTICLE. P18 COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 26/8/2011. P19 COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. P20 COPY OF THE INFORMATION GIVEN BY THE HEADMISTRESS ON 13/7/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.20268 of 2011-G. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 3rd October, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner, while working as an Assistant Electrical Inspector in the Electrical Inspectorate, Palakkad, had appeared for a departmental test conducted by the Public Service Commission (PSC for short), pursuant to Ext.P1 notification dated 1.10.2010. According to the petitioner, when the result was published, it was shown that the petitioner's result was withheld and that the petitioner had been debarred from applying/attending the PSC departmental examinations till 1.3.2012. According to the petitioner, there was no reporting of any malpractice at any time. However, according to the PSC, she had committed a malpractice and therefore action was initiated against her as per Ext.P10. 2. The allegation against the petitioner is that, she WP(C).No.20268/2011-G. 2 had used a sophisticated calculator during the examination, which is specifically prohibited by the rules that are applicable. The PSC therefore issued Ext.P15, which is a show cause notice, directing the petitioner to show cause why her examination should not be cancelled and a punishment of debarring her from taking future examinations till 1.3.2012 should not be imposed on her. The petitioner had replied to Ext.P15 by submitting her explanation evidenced herein by Ext.P18. However, no action has been taken thereafter in the matter, it is submitted. 3. According to the counsel for the petitioner, as per Ext.P15 which the petitioner has downloaded from the site of the respondents, she has already been punished and debarred from applying or appearing in any of the future departmental examinations till 1.3.2012. It is contended that, the said punishment has been imposed without issuing notice to her or hearing her. 4. Another specific allegation of the petitioner is that WP(C).No.20268/2011-G. 3 the Senior Superintendent who was in charge of the examination is a person who has been nursing a grudge against the petitioner. The petitioner is having a dispute with her husband and the said Senior Superintendent is a close friend of her husband. Alleging malafides, the petitioner has impleaded him in his personal capacity in this writ petition. According to the petitioner, the Rules mandate that the Examiner who detects the commission of any malpractice during an examination has to take possession of the article that was used for committing such malpractice after preparing a proof Mahazar witnessed by few persons present at that time. Since the above procedure has not been followed in the present case, it is contended that the allegations against the petitioner are without any basis and are created only out of personal enimity. 5. Be that as it may, it is not possible for me to ascertain the correctness or the veracity of the above allegations in this writ petition. However, a reading of WP(C).No.20268/2011-G. 4 Ext.P15 shows that the same is only a show cause seeking the explanation of the petitioner to the allegations contained therein. The Standing Counsel for the PSC after referring to Rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure points out that any of the punishments stipulated therein could be imposed on the petitioner either cumulatively or independently for the malpractice committed, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. It is pointed out that imposition of the punishment of cancelling her examinations and also debarring her from appearing for any future examination would not amount to double punishment. Any how, the PSC has not imposed any punishment on the petitioner at present and a decision whether or not to impose any punishment on the petitioner would be taken only after completion of the proceedings initiated on Ext.P15, to which the petitioner has already submitted her explanation as evidenced by Ext.P16. The above being the position, it is sufficient that this writ petition is disposed of directing the PSC to consider the WP(C).No.20268/2011-G. 5 contentions of the petitioner and to complete the proceedings expeditiously. 6. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the first respondent to complete the proceedings initiated against the petitioner as per Ext.P15 show cause notice, after considering the explanation of the petitioner contained in Ext.P18 representation and to complete all the formalities prescribed by the Rules for the conduct of such proceedings. The proceedings shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner also. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, (Judge) Kvs/-