IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1929 WA.No. 504 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.21892/2004 Dated 14/01/2008 .................... APPELLANT: RESPONDENTS IN WPC ----------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO LOCAL SELF ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER IN THE WPC ---------------------------------- A.S.KURIAN, ALAYAPARAMBIL, THAZHEKKARA, MAVELIKKARA (RETD. U.D.CLERK, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, KAYAMKULAM). BY SMT.BINDU SREEKUMAR THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Writ Appeal No.504 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judgment Balakrishnan Nair, J. The respondents in the Writ Petition are the appellants. The respondent herein approached this Court, challenging Ext.P8 order of the Director of Municipal Administration dated 08.10.1999, treating the period the petitioner was out of service from 17.01.1983 to 30.08.1984 as eligible leave and also Ext.P11 order of the Government, affirming Ext.P8. The writ petitioner was subjected to disciplinary action. He was suspended from service on 05.05.1980 and reinstated on 06.06.1980. Later, the Municipal Commissioner, the disciplinary authority imposed on him a punishment of barring one increment with cumulative effect by Ext.P1 order dated 06.06.1980. The second appellant suo motu reviewed that order and passed Ext.P2 order dated 11.01.1983, converting the punishment into one of removal from service. The writ petitioner moved the Government. The Government by Ext.P3, found that the order of the Director of Municipal Administration was illegal and therefore, set aside that order. As a result, the writ petitioner was reinstated in service on WA 504/08 2 30.08.1984. As a result of Ext.P2 illegal order, he was out of service from 17.01.1983 to 30.08.1984. Later, the Director, after affording an opportunity to represent to the writ petitioner, ordered to treat the period he was out of service from 17.01.1983 to 30.08.1984 as eligible leave by Ext.P8 order. The same was affirmed by the Government by Ext.P11. The writ petitioner attacked those orders contending that they are illegal and untenable. The respondents, relying on Rule 56 of Part I KSR, supported the impugned orders. It was contended that since the petitioner was not fully exonerated, the period he was out of service was rightly decided to be treated as eligible leave. Unless there is full exoneration, the said period cannot be treated as service, it was contended. The learned Single Judge took the view that since the second appellant's order was found to be illegal by the first appellant and his removal from service was set aside as per Ext.P3, it should be treated that he was kept out of service illegally and therefore, he is entitled to get all consequential benefits. This appeal is filed challenging the said finding of the learned Single Judge. 2. The learned Government Pleader canvassed the very same position which the appellants urged before the learned Single Judge. But, we are WA 504/08 3 inclined to fully agree with the learned Single Judge. The punishment of removal of the petitioner from service imposed as per Ext.P2 order of the Director was plainly illegal. It was so held by the Government rightly as per Ext.P3. It was specifically found that the Director of Municipal Administration was not authorised to review the order of the disciplinary authority and enhance the punishment. So, it has to be held that Ext.P2 order is ultra vires and therefore, void. In other words, the said order never had any legal effect. Therefore, the writ petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits. So the impugned orders have been rightly set aside by the learned Single Judge. In the result, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,JUDGE 29.02.2008 P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE sta WA 504/08 4