IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2009 / 5TH SRAVANA 1931 W.A.No. 2481 of 2007 ------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.16196/2007 Dated 19/06/2007 .................... APPELLANT(S)// PETITIONER: ------------------------ N.S. SAVITHRI PULPARAMBIL HOUSE, PERUMANNA P.O., CALICUT -26. BY ADVS. SRI.T.R.RAJAN & SRI.V.V.SADANANDAN (SREEMOOLANAGARAM) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS:- ----------------------- 1. SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, P.B. NO.10, HEAD OFFICE, MALAPPURAM 676 505. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, (DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY), SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, P.B. NO.10, HEAD OFFICE MALAPPURAM 676 505 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A. NO.2481 of 2007 ------------------------------ Dated this, the 27th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant is the writ petitioner and the respondents herein were the respondents in the writ petition. In the writ petition, she challenged the validity of the punishment imposed on her in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against her. The brief facts of the case are the following: The petitioner is an officer of the first respondent, South Malabar Gramin Bank. While she was working at Calicut, she was deputed for training at Sulthanbathery from 22.11.1999 to 27.11.1999. The misconduct alleged against her was in connection with the bill amount claimed by her towards T.A., room rent, etc. for attending the training. She submitted Ext.P2 bill, as per which, she stayed in Chakkalakkal Tourist Home from 21.11.199 to 27.11.1999 and paid a room rent of Rs.1,200/-. Later, on verification, it was found that, she did not stay there. So, the disciplinary authority served Ext.P6 memo W.A. No.2481 of 2007: - 2 - of charges calling upon her to explain why disciplinary action should not be initiated against her. The gravamen of the charge was that without staying in the tourist home from 21.11.1999 to 27.11.1999, she claimed an amount of Rs.1,200/- towards room rent and received the same. She submitted Ext.P7 reply. She admitted that she did not go to Sulthanbathery on 21.11.1999 or stayed there. She admitted that she reached Sulthanbathery on 22.11.1999, but had returned home in the evening on 22nd and also on 23rd. Thereafter, she stayed in the hotel along with her husband on 24th and 25th of November, 1999. Her husband returned on 26th morning and so, in the evening, she also went home. She came back on 27th November, 1999, attended the training and later in the evening settled the bill of the tourist home. The Manager directed her to pay the bill for the entire seven days, even though they stayed there only on 24th, 25th and 26th. It is stated that since she was a lady, she cannot argue with the Manager and she was compelled to pay the bill. Based on the said bill, the claim was made. So she prayed for dropping of further proceedings in the W.A. No.2481 of 2007: - 3 - matter. The disciplinary authority found her explanation to be not satisfactory and therefore, an enquiry officer was appointed, who filed Ext.P8 enquiry report finding her guilty. The report was forwarded to her with the proposal for imposing the punishment of withholding of three increments. Ext.P10 is the communication by the management in this regard. She filed Ext.P11 representation. But, overruling her contentions, by Ext.P12, the disciplinary authority imposed a punishment of barring two increments. She filed Ext.P13 appeal. In the appeal, as per Ext.P14 order, the punishment was reduced to barring of one increment. The writ petition was filed challenging Exts.P8, P12 and P14. The respondents filed a counter affidavit supporting the impugned orders. The learned Single Judge after hearing both sides, dismissed the writ petition. The learned Judge took the view that, from the admissions made by the appellant, it is seen that her claim for lodging charges, does not tally with her claim regarding the stay in the hotel. Therefore, the punishment of barring of one increment is justified, it was held. W.A. No.2481 of 2007: - 4 - 2. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned Single Judge, this writ appeal is filed. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, the excess claim is only an inadvertent error, for which, no punishment could have been awarded. She produced certain additional documents showing the details of her rating as an officer during the past few years. She was rated as good for the year 2004-05, and as outstanding, from 2005 to 2008. This is a solitary incident in her service career, which was made by her due to inexperience. So, the punishment in this case is not warranted, it is submitted. 3. We notice that, on the appellants own showing, she has stayed in the hotel only on 24th and 25th November, 1999. She did not go to Sulthanbathery on 21st. She returned home on 22nd and 23rd and 26th. In other words, on those four days (21st, 22nd, 23rd and 26th of November), she did not stay there. But she claimed lodging charges for those four days also. So, it was a wrong claim. Even if, she was given Ext.P2 bill by the Manager, she could have restricted her claim to the actual W.A. No.2481 of 2007: - 5 - days stayed there. So, to that extent, the petitioner's claim was false. The misconduct alleged against her is proved by her own admissions in her statement. So, the finding by the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority cannot be said to be based on no evidence. Having regard to the admitted fact, the learned Single Judge took the view that interfering with the punishment of barring one increment was unwarranted. We find that the above view taken by the learned Single Judge is a plausible view, on the facts of the case. We do not find any reason to take a different view. In the result, the writ appeal fails and it is dismissed. Sd/- K. Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. Sd/- C.T. Ravikumar, Judge. DK. (True copy)