IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2010 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 7331 of 2010(S) ------------------------------------- OA.341/2007 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN PO, CHENNAI-3. 2. THE FINANCIAL ADVISER & CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN PO, CHENNAI-3. 3. THE FINANCIAL ADVISER & CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER(GENERAL), SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN PO, CHENNAI-3. 4. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL FINANCE MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALGHAT DIVISION, PALGHAT. 5. THE CHIEF VIGILANCE OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN PO,CHENNAI -3. BY ADV. SMT.A.RAJESWARI, SC, RAILWAYS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- C.K.UNNI, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. LATE K.CHAMUNNY, SENIOR CASHIER GRADE II, OFFICE OF THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL CASHIER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALGHAT DIVISION, RESIDING AT 'PAVITHRAM' KIZHAKKETHARA, SEKHARIPURAM POST, PALAKKAD-10. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.7331 of 2010-S ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 8th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Petitioners challenge Ext.P4 which is the final order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. By the impugned order the Original Application filed by the respondent has been allowed. The respondent filed O.A challenging the disciplinary proceedings launched against him. The disciplinary proceedings culminated into an order whereby the respondent is reduced to a lower rank. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. We do not think that the petitioners have been able to convince us that there exists a ground warranting interference. However, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners may be given two months' time from today to comply with the order. It is pointed out that contempt proceedings are taken. 3. In the nature of the order we propose to pass WPC 7331/2010 -2- we do not think it necessary to issue notice to the respondent. While dismissing the writ petition we give two months' time from today to the petitioners to comply with the order. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS