M K JAYALAKSHMI Vs. SECRETARY LOCAL ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant/ writ Petitioner was a sweeper under the first Respondent. By Ext.P17 order dated 5.1.2009 the Appellant was ordered to be removed from service. Assailing Ext.P17, the Appellant preferred W.P. (C) 4075 of 2009 before this Court. While so, on 27.7.2009, the Appellant resorted to an alternate remedy; namely, an appeal under Section 509 of the Kerala Municipalities Act before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. The appeal was filed with certain defects. Though the Tribunal ordered to return the appeal for curing defects, the Appellant did not care to get the appeal returned or to cure the defects. On the other hand, it was submitted before this Court that an appeal was filed with some delay. Recording the submission, by Ext. P19 judgment dated 27.8.2009, W.P.(C) 4075/2009 was disposed of with a direction to the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal within four months. The Appellant then did not disclose that the appeal filed was defective and that the defect was not cured. The Appellant was ordered to vacate the quarters occupied by her. Since time limit was prescribed for disposal of the appeal, stay of eviction of the Appellant from the quarters was also granted in Ext.P19 judgment. Though the Tribunal ordered to return the appeal on 1.8.2009, the Appellant remained silent till 23.1.2010 when it was taken back. The appeal was retained by the Appellant for about 41/2 months and re-presented on 10.6.2010 with no good explanation for the delay in re-presenting the appeal. There was a delay of 139 days in preferring the appeal before the Tribunal. In fact no good reason was stated in the application for condoning the delay other than a vague statement that the Appellant was laid up from 7.2.2009 to 22.2.2009. It is not even mentioned as to what was the ailment. By Ext.P20 order dated 10.6.2010, the petition to condone the delay was dismissed by the Tribunal for the reason that Rule 8 of the Tribunal Rules does not empower the Tribunal to condone the delay exceeding one month. Assailing the above order, the Appellant preferred the present writ petition.

(2.) Since the Appellant had not cured the defect and the appeal preferred by the Appellant before the Tribunal could not be disposed of within the time limit prescribed in Ext.P19 judgment, the first Respondent filed a petition as I.A. 6851 of 2010 in W.P.(C) 4075/2009. By Annexure II order, that petition was allowed and the Appellant was directed to vacate the premises on or before 30.6.2010. Along with the writ petition on hand, the Appellant, suppressing Annexure II order, filed an application for continued occupation of the quarters. The learned Judge granted an interim order. When Annexure II order was brought to notice, taking into account the entire circumstances, the learned Single Judge observed that the conduct of the Petitioner disentitles her any further indulgence in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. Now this writ appeal.

(3.) Having heard either side and anxiously considering the documents on record, we find no good reason to diverge with the learned Single Judge. Suppressing material facts the Appellant secured an interim order. The learned Single Judge was perfectly right in finding that the conduct of the Petitioner disentitles her any further indulgence. Though we see no reason to diverge with the learned Single Judge, induced by our regard for substantial justice, we had asked either side to address us regarding the merit of the case. We, accordingly heard the matter on merits. Ext.P17 would show that the disciplinary authority accepted the enquiry report and it was placed before the council, which, after detailed deliberation, accepted the same, pursuing which Ext.P17 was issued. Therefore, the basis of Ext.P17 is the report of enqiry. The Appellant had not cared to produce the same in the writ petition or in this appeal or before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. The first Respondent had produced the same along with the counter affidavit. A copy of the same was made available to us and we were taken through the report of enquiry. It would show that the disciplinary action was initiated against the Appellant for (i) unauthorised and willful absence from the official duties from 4.10.2006 to 16.10.2006 during the emergency period due to epidemic diseases, (ii) wilful disobedience of lawful instructions of superior officers and (iii) non cooperation with the sanitary drive initiated by Municipality during the time of spread of epidemic diseases. A due enquiry was conducted after affording opportunity to the Appellant to defend. The enquiry officer had meticulously considered the evidence collected during the enquiry and arrived at a finding of fact that the charges levelled against the Appellant are proved. The Municipal council, by Ext.P16 resolution, accepted the same. The Appellant could not convince us about any illegality, error or impropriety or arbitrariness in the report of enquiry. There is no case of any violation of principles of natural justice or that the enquiry report is anyway vitiated warranting judicial interference.