IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2008 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 21887 of 2005(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- M.N. PURUSHOTHAMAN NAIR, INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C., MOOVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.P.J.MATHEW SRI.THOMAS JOHN AMBOOKEN RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, K.S.R.T.C., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C., TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATON & SECRETARY), K.S.R.T.C., TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON P. JOHN, SC, KSRTC FOR R1TO3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC. 21887/2005. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT. P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 17.2.2001. EXT. P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 1.1.2004. EXT. P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 15.1.2004. EXT. P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 21.2.2004. EXT. P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5.7.2004. EXT. P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 26.2.2005. K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No.21887 of 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT Disciplinary action was taken against the petitioner. Accepting the inquiry report given by the Inquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority proceeded to impose a punishment of barring of two increments with cumulative effect. An appeal was carried against the same. The appellate authority, while concurring the view taken by the disciplinary authority, decided to reduce the punishment to barring of one increment with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner carried the matter in revision before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal considered the matter and rejected it by Ext.P6. Petitioner challenges Exts.P4, P5 and P6. 2. I heard Sri. P.J.Mathew, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Johnson P. John, learned standing counsel for the respondents. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner was the complainant. The charge involved an incident where the petitioner working as Inspector was alleged to have used abusive language against another Inspector. It is not in dispute that both the petitioner and the other Inspector were proceeded against departmentally. Verysame punishment was WPC.21887/2005. 2 imposed against them by the disciplinary authority. Verysame punishment was imposed against them in the appeals. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the charge was that the petitioner has used abusive language. He would submit that there is no finding however in the inquiry report that the petitioner has used abusive language. Even though the petitioner has not used abusive language, he submits, still the punishment is retained in the form of order passed by the appellate authority, namely, barring of one increment for one year. He submits that in the facts of this case there is no warrant for barring of one increment. 4. I went through the orders. In fact it is not in dispute that the petitioner as also Sri. Antony are working as Inspectors and as found by the Appellate Tribunal even if the petitioner and Sri.Antony did not use abusive language, the fact remains that their conduct at the relevant time totally did not set a model for others and it is certainly unbecoming of them. Having regard to the nature of orders passed and also the punishment meted out by the petitioner, I do not think that the petitioner can complain under Article 226 of the Constitution, which is only concerned with interference in such matters based on principles of judicial review. This court does not sit as an WPC.21887/2005. 3 appellate court. In such circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned orders. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb