IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2008 / 4TH ASHADHA 1930 WA.No. 1303 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.1161/2005 Dated 05/02/2008 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER IN WP(C): ------------------------------------------------------- T.K.BALAN(EX.ASSISTANT, RUBBER BOARD COMPULSORILY RETIRED), MUDAVANAL HOUSE, ELAVANTHITTA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA 689625. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.) RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS IN WP(C): ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, UDYOG BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-11. 2. THE JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, UDYOG BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-11. 3. THE RUBBER BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, P.B.NO.1122, SUB JAIL ROAD, KOTTAYAM 686002. BY THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss J.B. KOSHY & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. -------------------------------------- W.A.NO.1303 OF 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T Koshy,J. Appellant/petitioner was charge sheeted while he was employed as an Assistant in the 3rd respondent Rubber Board . All the allegations were as follows: "Shri.T.K.Balan, while functioning as Upper Division Clerk/Assistant in the Regional Offices of the Board at Pathanamthitta/Mangalore and Central Experiment Station, Chethackal during the years 1980 to 1986 failed to maintain devotion to duty and conducted himself in an unbecoming manner in as much as he misusing his official position devoted his time and energy for promoting the affairs/business of "Mudavanal" bus service and he despite instructions/warnings, often absented for duty without prior intimation/sanction of leave and failed to perform his official duties properly/neglected his duties. He has thereby committed gross misconduct." W.A.1303/08 2 In respect of the above charges, a detailed domestic enquiry was held and report was made on 5.12.1988. Disciplinary authority agreed with the findings of the Enquiry officer and disciplinary authorities decided to impose compulsory retirement. One of the grounds stated by the petitioner is that before accepting the findings of the Enquiry officer, he was not forwarded a copy of the enquiry. But it is seen that enquiry report was issued along with the notice proposing penalty. The findings of the Enquiry officer was also attacked in the reply. That was considered by the disciplinary authorities before punishment was imposed. The learned Single Judge correctly found that no prejudice is caused to him because of non-supply of enquiry findings before show cause notice imposing punishment was issued. The appellate authority also considered the matter in detail and rejected the challenge regarding the findings of the Enquiry officer and punishment imposed. Petitioner approached this Court and this Court directed the appellate authority to reconsider the matter. Thereafter Ext.P7 order was passed in the year 1995. In 2004, after nine years, a review petition Ext.P8 was filed and that was rejected by Ext.P10. Exts.P7 and P10 are questioned by him. W.A.1303/08 3 In fact, a review petition is not contemplated in the service rules. Against Ext.P7 order passed in 1995, after nine years, merely by filing a review petition and getting an adverse order he cannot resurrect a stale matter. Apart from the above, the learned Single Judge correctly found that this Court in a petition under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot interfere with the findings of the Enquiry officer as this Court is not exercising appellate jurisdiction. The learned Judge found that in view of the findings regarding misconduct, it cannot be stated that punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate. Now the petitioner also reached the age of superannuation. In these circumstances, we see no ground to interfere in the above judgment, and hence, this appeal is dismissed. J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE prp