HIGH COURT OF KERALA Vs. MOHAMMED FAISAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The third respondent in the Writ Petition, the High Court of Kerala, represented by its Registrar, is the appellant. The 1st respondent herein was the writ petitioner.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are the following:

(3.) The 1st respondent contended that before accepting the report of the Enquiry Officer, the High Court should have furnished a copy of the same to him and considered his views on the report. In support of that submission, reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Managing Director, E.C.I.L v. B. Karunakar, 1993 4 SCC 727. The 1st respondent also contended that the Government being the appointing authority and therefore, the competent authority to impose the punishment of removal from service, should have issued show cause notice to him and heard him. Since the Government did not do that, the impugned orders are vitiated for violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore, liable to be quashed. The 1st respondent further contended that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are not supported by the evidence on record and therefore, should not have been accepted by the High Court or the Government.