M. RADHAKRISHNAN, CONVENER, Vs. A.C. JAILAVUDEEN,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment sought to be reviewed was issued setting aside the disciplinary proceedings which stood affirmed in proceedings under Rule 176 of the KCS Rules. While it may be true that Rule 176 may not enable adjudication of individual rights referable to disciplinary proceedings because that may not emanate out of a resolution of the society, the fundamental principle on which the judgment sought to be reviewed was issued is that the enquiry against the writ petitioner was conducted by an advocate who later appeared for the employer society to justify his own enquiry report before superior authorities. Such procedure had stamped the proceedings with vice on its forehead. It had infracted the known canons of transparency, fair play and unbiased approach as is required in disciplinary proceedings.

(2.) THE review petitioners, though notified of the writ petition, did not appear. They attributed it to the fact that the counsel who was appearing for them before the lower authorities at an earlier point of time had died and the files had to be traced out through his son, who is also a practising advocate. I would deem it as a ground to hear the review petitioners.

(3.) HOWEVER , the review petition having been filed, the writ petitioner has filed a counter affidavit further pointing out that even earlier there was an arbitration case and in all those matters, including the present matter pending before the arbitration court, the same advocate continues to appear for the management. Whatever be the propriety of such an exercise or the truthfulness of that allegation, it has to be affirmed that the entire disciplinary proceedings against the writ petitioner is vitiated and there is no ground in law to hold that the finding in the impugned judgment that the disciplinary enquiry cannot stand, requires interference either in review or otherwise.