IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2010 / 14TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 37616 of 2009(V) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- A. SIVANKUTTY, ASSISTANT FOREMAN, GOVERNMENT CENTRAL PRESS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.ELVIN PETER P.J. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PRINTING, GOVERNMENT CENTRAL PRESS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT, GOVERNMENT CENTRAL PRESS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.P.NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.37616 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges Exts.P4 to P10 proceedings by which punishment of barring one increment with cumulative effect has been imposed on him on the ground that he had shown minus out-turn. The petitioner is a Assistant Foreman working in the Government Central Press, Thiruvananthapuram. According to him, he was sick and was not able to achieve the necessary performance on medical grounds. The petitioner relies on the judgment of this court in O.P.18114 of 1995 by which, an action of the Government imposing the punishment of barring of three increments with cumulative effect has been set aside. The counsel for the petitioner also has drawn my attention to Ext.P2 and P3 orders issued by the Government, by which the cumulative effect of punishment of barring of increments on the incumbents in the said orders were set aside and orders were issued barring the increments without cumulative effect. He claims that his case also requires to be treated on the said basis. Wpc 37616/09 2 2. The learned Government Pleader on the other hand, draws my attention to Ext.P10 order dated 15.12.2008 by which it has been intimated to the Director of Printing, Government Central Press, Thiruvananthapuram that whenever minus out-turn in excess of 100 hours is shown by the employees, increments shall be barred with cumulative effect. The counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in view of Ext.P8 communication, the remedy by way of appeal available to the petitioner has been rendered superfluous and ineffective. Therefore, he seeks quashing of Ext.P10. 3. Ext.P10 is only a communication that is issued by the Principal Secretary to the Director of Printing. The same does not contain any direction in relation to the duties of the petitioner. It cannot be disputed that disciplinary proceedings or imposition of penalty on an employee would have to be considered on a case to case basis depending on the fact situation applicable to each particular employee. The punishment of barring an increment could be imposed on an employee only if it is shown that the minus out-turn was due to some act or omission on the part of the employee. There is certainly no doubt that an employee cannot be penalised for a minus out-turn that is Wpc 37616/09 3 attributable to factors beyond his control. The above aspect will certainly have to be considered by the authority imposing any punishment. 4. Ext.P7 appeal is admittedly pending before the second respondent. Since no orders have been passed on the said appeal so far, this writ petition could be disposed of directing the second respondent to pass appropriate orders on Ext.P7 appeal. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P7 appeal, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and uninfluenced by the policy statement in Ext.P10 communication. The petitioner is permitted to produce a copy of this judgment before the second respondent for compliance. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk