IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2010 / 6TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 18063 of 2010(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): A.K.DEVAKUMAR,PALLIVAYALIL,KANDACHIRA, PERINADU POST, KOLLAM, WORKING AS HEAD OF SECTION IN ELECTRICAL SECTION, THE SREE NARAYANA POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE,KOTTIYAM,KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR SRI.KRISHNAN.S.RAJ SMT.A.R.SINDHU RESPONDENT(S): 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR,DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE HIGHER EDUCATION SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE PRINCIPAL, THE SREE NARAYANA POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE,KOTTIYAM. 5. THE CHAIRMAN,THE SREE NARAYANA TRUST, POST BOX NO.63,KOLLAM-1. 6. B.K.SANJEEVAN,PRINCIPAL, THE SREE NARAYANA POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE,KOTTIYAM. ADV. SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU,STANDING COUNSEL-R4 & 5 SRI.A.R.EASWAR LAL FOR R5 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.DILIP MOHAN-R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.18063 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated 28th July, 2010 JUDGMENT This is a second round litigation of the petitioner for the very same grievance. Earlier, alleging certain illegalities and infirmities that infected the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.7248 of 2007. The said writ petition was disposed of as per Ext.P9 judgment. As per Ext.P9, the fifth respondent therein was directed to issue notice to the petitioner for the purpose of extending him an opportunity to make his representations against the enquiry report. An opportunity of being heard was also directed to be afforded. In short, as per Ext.P9, the fifth respondent was directed to pass a reasoned order in the matter of finalisation of the proceedings initiated against the petitioner after complying with the principles of natural justice. According to the petitioner, in purported compliance of the directions in Ext.P9 judgment the fifth respondent has, now, passed Ext.P16 order. It is contended that Ext.P16 cannot be construed as an order passed imbibing the spirit of Ext.P9 judgment. 2. A bare perusal of Ext.P16 order would reveal that it is a non-speaking order. No reason whatsoever has been reflected in WP(C).No.18063/2010 2 Ext.P16 to support the conclusion arrived at. It is the bounden duty of an authority, while passing an order in relation to disciplinary proceedings, to assign the reasons for arriving at a conclusion against the incumbent. Absolute absence of such reasons would definitely make such an order unsustainable. In this case, the fifth respondent should have been considered the matter with due regard to Ext.P9 judgment. Evidently, there is nothing which would suggest that Ext.P16 order has been passed taking into account the directions in Ext.P9 judgment. It can only be styled as an order passed with a closed mind. Therefore, according to me, the issue requires a reconsideration by the fifth respondent. To enable the fifth respondent to reconsider the issue and pass fresh orders in the matter of finalisation of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, Ext.P16 is set aside. It will be open to the fifth respondent to pass a reasoned order in terms of Ext.P9 judgment as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS