Kerala High Court
S.Anilkumar vs The High Court Of Kerala on 3 June, 2011
Author: C.T.Ravikumar
Bench: C.T.Ravikumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014/27TH POUSHA, 1935
WP(C).No. 1637 of 2014 (R)
---------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
----------------
S.ANILKUMAR
BENCH CLERK GRADE-I,
DISTRICT COURT NO.III, PALAKKAD.
BY ADVS.SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN
SRI.R.MANIKANTAN
SMT.P.G.BABITHA
RESPONDENT(S):
-------------------
1. THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR GENERAL
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI-682 031.
2. THE REGISTRAR
SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY, HIGH COURT OF KERALA
KOCHI-682 031.
3. THE DISTRICT JUDGE
DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD-678 001.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17-01-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 1637 of 2014 (R)
---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------------
EXHIBIT P1.TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIOENR DURING
THE PRELILMINARY ENQUIRY.
EXHIBIT P2.TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES ACCOMPANIED BY THE
STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS.
EXHIBIT P3.TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO THE MEMO OF CHARGES.
EXHIBIT P4.TRUE COPY OF THE PEROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT
DATED 3/6/2011.
EXHIBIT P5.TRUE COPY OF THE PEROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT
DATED 15/6/2012 ALONG WITH THE COVERING LETTER DATED 19/2/2012.
EXHIBIT P6.TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTES SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE ENQUIRY OFFICER.
EXHIBIT P7.TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT ALONG WITH THE SHOW
CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P8.TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 3/1/2013 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P9.TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER GIVEN BY THE THEN JUNIOR
SUPERINTENDENT TO THE SUB JUDGE.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE.
dlk
C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 1637 of 2014
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of January, 2014
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is presently working as Bench Clerk in the Additional District Court-III, Palakkad. Initially, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner as per Ext.P2. Admittedly, after culmination of the disciplinary proceedings Ext.P7 enquiry report was submitted before the disciplinary authority, the third respondent. Thereupon, the petitioner was served with a copy of the enquiry report along with the show cause notice. Virtually, as per Ext.P7 what is required of the petitioner is to offer explanation based on the enquiry report. Pursuant to the receipt of Ext.P7 the petitioner submitted Ext.P8 reply. This writ petition has been filed after submitting Ext.P8 reply dated 31.3.2013 with the following prayers:-
i. "Issue a Writ of certiorari or other appropriate Writs, Orders or Directions to call for the records leading up to Exhibit P-7 and to quash the same.
W.P.(C) No. 1637 of 2014 2 ii. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate Writs, Orders or Directions commanding the third respondent disciplinary authority to entrust the investigation to the Vigilance Wing of this Hon'ble Court and to proceed in accordance with law."
2. As regards the disciplinary proceedings, going by the mandatory procedures to be complied with after submission of the enquiry report by the enquiry officer to the disciplinary authority, the disciplinary authority is bound to forward a copy of the same and offer an opportunity to the delinquent employee to submit his/her explanation thereon. Evidently, that alone was done by the 3rd respondent through Ext.P7. Availing the opportunity the petitioner has submitted Ext.P8 reply which essentially is in the form of an explanation as to why the findings in Ext.P7 shall not be accepted. Going by the procedures the disciplinary authority has to consider the explanation offered by the petitioner and to conclude the proceedings taking into account the report as also the explanation. In the said circumstances I am of the view that the petitioner cannot now seek interference with Ext.P7 and its quashment at this stage in this proceedings. That apart, I am of W.P.(C) No. 1637 of 2014 3 the considered view that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would lie when some right is infringed. Mere issuance of a notice virtually calling for explanation after furnishing the copy of the enquiry report, as part of disciplinary proceedings would not infringe the right of anyone. In such circumstances, this writ petition to the extent it carries the challenge against the enquiry report and show cause notice viz., Ext.P7 has to fail. The further prayer of the petitioner is to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the third respondent to entrust the investigation to the Vigilance Wing of this Court and to proceed in accordance with law. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the time being the petitioner is now, pressing it into service. It is in the said circumstances holding that the writ petition is prematurely moved and it is dismissed.
Sd/-
C.T.RAVIKUMAR,JUDGE.
dlk