IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2008 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 17848 of 2008(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER: PETITIONER ---------------------- K. BALACHANDRA MENON, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (ADHOC-II), KASARAGOD NEDUMPILLIL HOUSE, XXIV/112/2, P.O. POONKUNNAM, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR SRI.ASHIM.M.V. RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, TRIVANDRUM. 2. HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REP. BY REGISTRAR (SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY), ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.KRB.KAIMAL (SR.) FOR R2 SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).17848/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 16th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT While functioning as Additional District Judge (Adhoc-I) in Kasargod District, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, as evidenced by Ext.P8 memo of charges. Apparently, a decision to conduct an enquiry came to be made, partly on account of the observations made by a learned Judge of this Court in Ext.P6 judgment in a Civil Revision Petition preferred against an order passed by the Execution Court called upon to execute an award on a Land Acquisition Reference. Ext.P8 memo of charges were issued on 27.3.2008. For all intents and purposes, the disciplinary proceedings should be deemed to have commenced at least on 27.3.2008. Petitioner submitted Ext.P9 written objection to each one of the charges and statement of allegations and ultimately, a decision has been taken. By Ext.P10, the petitioner has been intimated that a formal enquiry will be conducted on the charges leveled against him. A learned Judge of this Court has been appointed as W.P.(C).17848/2008 2 the enquiry officer. He has been directed to appear before the enquiry officer at 4.40 p.m on 16.6.2008. 2. According to the petitioner, he attained the age of 60 on 3.6.2008 and therefore, in terms of Rule 60(aa) of Part-I of KSR, he retired on superannuation on 3.6.2008. He contends that no disciplinary enquiry can thereafter, be continued against him. It is therefore, that he seeks a declaration that second respondent, High Court of Kerala, is incompetent to continue the disciplinary proceedings against him beyond 3.6.2008. He also sought for a writ of certiorari for quashing Ext.P8 memo of charges. 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.P.Vijayakumar and the learned senior counsel, Sri.K.R.B.Kaimal along with Sri.Unnikrishna Kaimal on behalf of the second respondent. 4. The short question for consideration is whether the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner W.P.(C).17848/2008 3 as per Ext.P10, is incompetent. In another words, does the second respondent become bereft of jurisdiction to proceed with the enquiry, on the petitioner attaining the age of superannuation and being permitted to retire from service. The question as to whether the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 3.6.2008 or whether he will attain it only on 30.6.2008, ie, the end of the month when he attains the age of 60, does not really arise for consideration in this writ petition. Even if the petitioner's argument that he attains the age of superannuation on 3.6.2008, is accepted, the disciplinary proceedings already initiated against him and Ext.P8 memo of charges do not become incompetent. It can be continued though the final order, that may be passed by the disciplinary authority, would probably be limited to certain areas. The law in this regard has been laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in Raveendran Nair v. State of Kerala (2007 (1) KLT 605). It is therefore, not open to the petitioner to contend that the disciplinary proceedings initiated on 27.3.2008 abates or that the disciplinary authority is incompetent to proceed with the W.P.(C).17848/2008 4 same, merely because the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation and has been permitted to retire. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Vijayakumar submits that this Court should now decide whether the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 3.6.2008 or will attain it only on 30.6.2008. I do not propose to decide this issue at this stage, essentially because the continuance of the proceedings initiated under Ext.P8 is really not dependant on the said question. It might, at best, have an impact on the punishment that may ultimately have to be imposed on the petitioner, on the completion of enquiry. Obviously disciplinary powers are exercised by a high powered body. There is no reason to believe or apprehend that any such contention of the petitioner revolving around the question as to whether he has retired on 3.6.2008, will not be addressed by the disciplinary authority at the appropriate stage. 6. Mr.Vijayakumar then contends that he was afforded W.P.(C).17848/2008 5 an opportunity of personal hearing in Ext.P8 memo of charges and he has specifically requested for such personal hearing in Ext.P9. But, nevertheless an enquiry is ordered without giving him an opportunity of proving that an enquiry need not be conducted. I have perused Exts.P8 and P9. Firstly they have to be considered in the context of Rule 15 of the K.C.S (C.C. & A) Rules, 1960. An opportunity of personal hearing before the disciplinary authority even takes a decision to proceed with an enquiry as such is not specifically contemplated by the Rules nor can I construe the opportunity afforded under Ext.P8, as an opportunity of personal hearing before the disciplinary authority proceeds with the enquiry in terms of Rule 15 of the Rules as such. I do not find any grounds to interfere with the continuation of the disciplinary proceedings, as now proposed under Ext.P10. 7. For all these reasons, I do not find any reason to interdict the continuation of the disciplinary proceedings at this stage. Writ petition is bereft of merit and hence W.P.(C).17848/2008 6 dismissed. All other contentions raised by the petitioner are left open. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs