IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 34056 of 2008(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.USHA, W/O.PREMDOSS SWAMI DOSS YEHUDI, INTERGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICE SUPERIVISOR, RESIDING AT HARGERIZIM, VETTU VILA, KIZHAKKETHIL LANE, MANKUZHY, PANGAPPARA P.O., THIRUVNANTHAPURAM 695 581. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA SRI.M.S.KALESH SRI.HARISH GOPINATH SRI.V.VINAY MENON SMT.KVP.JAYALEKSHMY SRI.M.AJAY (IRUMPANAM) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,GOVT. OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, 5TH FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SMT. MARY JOHN, CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, I.C.D.S., PATHANAPURAM, PATHANAPURAM P.O.. 4. THE SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ====================================== W.P.(C)No. 34056 of 2008 ====================================== Dated this the 19th day of November 2008 JUDGMENT Heard Sri.R.S.Kalkura, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner, who is presently working as an Integrated Child Development Service Supervisor, challenges Ext.P5 order passed by the disciplinary authority and Ext.P9 appellate order passed by the State Government. By Ext.P5, the disciplinary authority imposed on the petitioner the punishment of censure. On an appeal filed by the petitioner, on an analysis of evidence the Government upheld the imposition of the punishment by Ext.P9 order. The petitioner challenges Exts.P5 and P9 inter alia on the ground that the disciplinary action was initiated by the third respondent out of personal ill will and animosity. 3. The disciplinary authority has, after complying with the procedure prescribed in the rules and after affording the petitioner an opportunity to state her case, arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct. The disciplinary authority has by Ext.P5 order imposed on the petitioner a minor punishment of censure. The appellate authority has, after hearing the petitioner in person, concurred with the decision of the appellate authority. The Apex Court has held that this Court can in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of W.P.(C)No.34056 of 2008 2 the Constitution of India, interfere with the orders passed in disciplinary proceedings only if the principles of natural justice have not been complied with or the procedure prescribed in the rules has not been adhered to or if there is no evidence to prove the charges. The Apex Court has held that this Court cannot act as an appellate authority, analyse the evidence and come to its own conclusion as to whether the misconduct alleged has been proved or not. In the instant case, apart from alleging that the disciplinary action was engineered by the third respondent, who according to the petitioner has animosity and ill will towards her, there is no material on the basis of which this Court can come to the conclusion that the order imposing the punishment of censure is in any way vitiated. The petitioner has no case that the procedure prescribed in the rules has not been adhered to. She has also no case that the order was passed by an incompetent authority. Further the petitioner had also filed an appeal before the appellate authority at the highest level, viz. the Government. The Government heard the petitioner, considered her contentions and passed an order concurring with the disciplinary authority. In these circumstances, I find no merit in the challenge to Exts.P5 and P9. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE css/