IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 32727 of 2009(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- AJAYAKUMAR K.N., JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT, ERATTUPETTA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU SRI.S.K.PREMRAJ SRI.ABHILASH AKBAR SRI.T.B.SIVAPRASAD SRI.V.S.PREJITH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR (SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY). 2. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS-1 KOTTAYAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, LAW DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. MS.ANU SIVARAMAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = W.P.(C). No. 32727 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = Dated this the 16th day of November 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as a Junior Superintendent in the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Erattupetta. He is aggrieved by Ext.P2 memo issued by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kottayam, by which the petitioner has been directed to show cause why disciplinary action should not be initiated against the petitioner for the misconducts alleged there. According to the petitioner, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary action. He also contests the correctness of the allegations made in Ext.P2. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. I am of the opinion that Ext.P2 is only a memo directing the petitioner to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner can very well file his explanation to Ext.P2 stating his contentions against Ext.P2. The question of jurisdiction arises only when disciplinary action is actually initiated. Even otherwise, the W.P.(C). No. 32727 OF 2009 2 petitioner can challenge the competency also in his explanation. Therefore, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to raise all his contentions in his reply to Ext.P2, this writ petition is dismissed. (S. SIRI JAGAN) JUDGE kkms/