IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 24TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 26610 of 2008(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.KRISHNAN NAMBOOTHIRI, S/O. LATE VISHNU NAMBOOTHIRI, AMPADI ILLOM, ATTINGAL.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 101. BY ADV. SRI.S.NARAYANAN NAIR SRI.R.GOPALAKRISHNAN (SREEVALSAM) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVT. DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SECRETARY, ATTINGAL MUNICIPALITY ATTINGAL. BY GOVT. PLEADER SHRI. P.NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P(C). No. 26610 OF 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 15th September, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is a pensioner. He retired from service on 30.4.2007 on attaining the age of superannuation, while he was serving in the Attingal Municipality. While the petitioner was serving as Upper Division Clerk in the Attingal Municipality disciplinary action was initiated against him. That culminated in Ext.P8 order dated 9.12.2005 passed by the Secretary of the Attingal Municipality. By the said order the Secretary of Attingal Municipality imposed on the petitioner the punishment of barring two increments with cumulative effect. On appeal filed by the petitioner, the Director of Urban Affairs by Ext.P9 order passed on 18.12.2006 reduced the punishment to barring of one increment with cumulative effect. The petitioner challenged Exts.P8 and P9 before the State Government. By Ext.P11 order passed on 28.6.2007 the Government rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner. The petitioner challenged Exts.P8, P9 and P11 orders in W.P(C) 29163 of 2007. By Ext.P15 judgment delivered on WPC 26610/08 2 3.10.2007 this court directed as follows:- “Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P6 order of the Municipal Secretary, Attingal and Ext.P9, the order passed by the Government affirming the order of penalty issued by the Secretary of Municipal Common Service. Bar of one increment with cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner. 2. In the circumstances, petitioner may file a petition invoking Rule 35 of the Rules within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment before the first respondent. If it is so done, the said petition shall be treated as within time and a decision be taken thereon by the first respondent within two months from the date of receipt of the petition, after hearing the petitioner. Writ petition is disposed of as above.” The petitioner thereafter filed Ext.P16 review petition. That was rejected by Ext.P17 order dated 24.5.2008. In this writ petition the petitioner challenges Ext.P17. 2. I have heard Shri. S.Narayanan Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri. P. Nandakumar, learned Govt. Pleader appearing for the respondents. In my considered opinion, Ext.P16 review petition filed by the petitioner was not competent and was not maintainable under the provisions of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960. The WPC 26610/08 3 original order imposing punishment was passed by the Secretary of Attingal Municipality. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal and the appellate authority passed Ext.P9 order reducing the punishment. Under the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960 the petitioner had the right to file a review petition before the State Government invoking Rule 34 of the said rules. Though styled as an appeal the petitioner invoked that remedy and by Ext.P11 order passed on 28.6.2007 the Government rejected the appeal. The petitioner thereafter filed W.P(C) No: 29163 of 2007 challenging Ext.P11, which was marked as Ext.P9 in the said writ petition. Though, this Court had by Ext.P15 judgment reserved liberty with the petitioner to file a review petition under Rule 35 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960, on the terms of Rule 35 of the Rules, Ext.P16 review petition filed by the petitioner was not maintainable. Rule 35 applies only to review of original orders passed by the Government. As noticed earlier, the petitioner had invoked the power of the Government under Rule 34 on an earlier occasion and that led to the passing of Ext.P11 order. Therefore the second review petition filed by the petitioner was not maintainable. WPC 26610/08 4 4. On the merits also I find no reason to interfere with Ext.P17. The disciplinary authority, the appellate authority and the Government have considered the various contentions put forward by the petitioner and have held that the imposition of punishment of barring of one increment with cumulative effect was justified. In the instant case, no material has been produced before me to establish that the finding of guilt entered by the enquiry officer and accepted by the disciplinary authority is in any way perverse. The petitioner has also no case that he was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to defend the charges. The petitioner was not able to show that the procedure prescribed under the rules was not complied with. I therefore find no ground to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed in limine. P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE jj