IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2010 / 22ND ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18256 of 2010(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MANOJ V.S., VILLAGE OFFICER, NOCHAD VILLAGE, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SC SRI. ALEXANDER THOMAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 18256 OF 2010(F) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a Village Officer. He appeared for the Kerala Criminal Judicial Test conducted by the PSC in 2008. He was thereafter issued Ext.P1 memo stating that he did not affix his signature in the signed list and that he left the examination hall before the half an hour of commencement of examination and that he did not return the answer sheets. On this allegation he was called upon to show cause why action shall not be taken against him. Petitioner filed Ext.P2 explanation where virtually he admitted the allegations and sought to explain the same. Thereafter again issued Ext.P3 was issued stating that his explanation was unsatisfactory to which he submitted yet another explanation. Finally by Ext.P5, he was informed that the explanation was unsatisfactory, that his register number is removed and that he has been disqualified for 2 years. He filed Ext.P6 appeal which was rejected by Ext.P7. In this writ petition challenge is against Exts.P5 and P7. WPC.No. 18256/2010 :2 : 2. A reading of Exts.P1 and P2 shows that virtually there is an admission of all allegation in Ext.P2 explanation submitted by the petitioner. If that be the case I cannot find fault with the PSC for having taken the decision as is seen in Ext.P5. 3. Counsel contends that Ext.P7 appellate order reflects non application of mind and that the contentions raised by the petitioner in the replies filed are not dealt with. In Ext.P7, the appellate authority has confirmed Ext.P5 order of the Original Authority. If the appellate authority is only endorsing the view taken by the Original Authority, the appellate authority is not expected to pass a detailed order and it will be sufficient if the order reflects a proper consideration of the matter. Counsel then contended that petitioner was not heard by the appellate authority. No rule was shown to me requiring that an opportunity of hearing should be given to the petitioner. That apart, the memorandum of appeal also does not disclose that the petitioner had sought for an opportunity of hearing. In such circumstances, denial of hearing cannot be a ground to impugn Ext.P7 order. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No. 18256/2010 :3 :