Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

K.K.CICILY versus STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


K.K.CICILY v. STATE OF KERALA - OP No. 24039 of 2001(J) [2006] RD-KL 2641 (6 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP No. 24039 of 2001(J)

1. K.K.CICILY
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY

For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH

Dated :06/12/2006

O R D E R

KURIAN JOSEPH, J.

O.P.No.24039 of 2001 Dated 6th December, 2006.

J U D G M E N T

The challenge is on Ext.P10 order passed by the Government on Ext.P9 revision filed by the petitioner. The issue pertains to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner. As per Ext.P6, the disciplinary authority, taking note of the fact that the petitioner had already retired from service on 31.5.1999 and any punishment would have serious adverse consequences on the petitioner's retirement, imposed only a minor punishment of censure. However, the period of suspension was directed to be treated as eligible leave. The matter was pursued in appeal before the Director of Public Instruction and thereafter, as per Ext.P9 before the Government. It is seen that the only prayer in Ext.P9 revision before the Government is to set aside the impugned orders of the Deputy Director as well as Director and to direct to treat the period of suspension as duty for all purposes. It appears the Government has missed the point while considering the revision petition leading to Ext.P10 order. The Government, referring to the charges, finally held that OP NO.24039/01 2

"Therefore, it is revealed that there was dereliction of duty on your part in discharging the duties as the headmaster of the school. Therefore, Government feel that there is no ground/reason to exonerate fully from the charges levelled against you." I am afraid, there is no proper application of mind by the Government on the crucial issue. The sole consideration required under Rule 56B(3) of Part I K.S.R. is whether the suspension in the circumstances was wholly unjustified and if so, whether the period is liable to be treated as duty for all purposes. According to the petitioner, the punishment ultimately sustained being only censure and going by the charges also, it could be seen that the suspension is wholly unjustified. It is also submitted that in that view of the matter only, the disciplinary authority also made an observation in the impugned Ext.P6 order that the said authority does not intend to cause any adverse impact on the pensionary benefits of the petitioner. The suspension period is only from 30.12.1998 to 23.3.1999. If the said period is treated as eligible leave, it is submitted that the same would have impact on the service benefits due to the petitioner after retirement. The submission that the petitioner was not paid subsistence allowance for the period of suspension is also to be noted. Yet another OP NO.24039/01 3 submission worth noting is that the punishment in any case after retirement is impermissible since there is a severance of relationship between employer and employee. Bereft of the crucial and relevant considerations, it cannot be said that Ext.P10 is a proper order. I quash Ext.P10. There will be a direction to the first respondent to consider Ext.P9 afresh with notice to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, in the light of the observations contained in this judgment and adverting to the other contentions taken by the petitioner at the time of hearing, within three months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. It is made clear that in case the period of suspension is not treated as duty for all purposes, the eligible subsistence allowance for the period of suspension will be disbursed to the petitioner, within another three months. The writ petition is disposed of as above.

KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE.

tgs

KURIAN JOSEPH, J

O.P.No. 24039 of 2001 (J)

J U D G M E N T

Dated 6th December, 2006.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.