IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 17TH MAY 2010 / 27TH VAISAKHA 1932 WA.No. 610 of 2010 ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.7581/2000 Dated 28/01/2010 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN WPC: ------------------------------------ N.RAVEENDRAN PILLAI, S/O.NARAYANA PILLAI, AGED 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT `KARTHIKA', UMMANNOOR P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.RAJENDRAN NAIR, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.M.R.HARIRAJ SRI.SURAJ.S SRI.P.A.KUMARAN SRI.NIRMAL V NAIR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KOLLAM. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVASIS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.N.Ravindran, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A. No.610 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, C.J. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 28th January, 2010 in O.P.No.7581 of 2000. 2. The appellant/unsuccessful writ petitioner was an employee of the State working as U.D.Clerk in the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Punalur. By the order impugned in the writ petition, the appellant was dismissed from service. The said order was preceded by a departmental enquiry on various charges. The substance of the charges is that there was serious dereliction of duty on the part of the appellant in not processing the charge sheet in a particular criminal case involving offences like 302 IPC etc. We may state here that for almost an year from the date of receipt of the charge sheet, the charge sheet was not placed before the Presiding Officer of the Court. W.A.No.610 of 2010 - 2 - 3. One of the charges is that such an inaction on the part of the appellant was deliberate and mala fide. 4. On an appropriate departmental enquiry it was found that the appellant was guilty of the charge of dereliction of duty as alleged. However, the enquiry officer found that there was no mala fides on the part of the appellant which prompted the said dereliction of duty. 5. On the background of the abovementioned facts, the appointing authority thought it fit to dismiss the appellant from service and hence the writ petition. 6. The learned Judge by the judgment under appeal did not see any reason to interfere with the punishment imposed on the appellant. 7. Sri.M.R.Rajendran Nair, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct proved against the appellant. According to the learned counsel, if the W.A.No.610 of 2010 - 3 - dereliction of duty such as the one alleged against the appellant which is found to be not mala fide deserves punishment of dismissal from service, there would not be any punishment left in the departmental proceedings to be imposed upon a person who is found guilty to an identical misconduct like the one alleged against the appellant, but prompted by mala fides. 8. We are afraid that the argument is misconceived. This Court does not decide hypothetical questions such as the one raised by the appellant as indicated above. On the facts of the case in hand, having regard to the nature of the charges, we do not see any reason to interfere with the finding recorded by the learned Judge that the punishment awarded to the appellant cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct proved against the him. We may add that in a given case where such misconduct is also coupled with mala fides, apart from the departmental action other legal action also can be taken against such an employee. The judgment under appeal W.A.No.610 of 2010 - 4 - recorded appropriate reasons for the conclusion reached by the learned Judge. We do not see any reason to interfere with the same. The writ appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice P.N.Ravindran, Judge vns