MINIMOL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE disciplinary action finalized once by imposing a 'minor penalty', has now been sought to be altered by subsequent proceedings, imposing a 'major penalty' by way of Ext. P8, which is under challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) THE petitioner who was working as H.S.A (Malayalam), came to be suspended from service on 25.05.2009 for having gone abroad during vacation without obtaining prior permission. It was also in respect of a misconduct that she entrusted promotion list to one of her colleagues to be submitted before the Management, instead of presenting the same in person, that too, without any information to the Manager. It is seen that the petitioner was subsequently reinstated in service on 09.06.2009 and disciplinary action was proceeded with. Pursuant to the notice issued by the Manager, the petitioner explained the sequence of events and after considering the facts and figures Ext. P5 order was passed by the 5th respondent on 01.07.2009, whereby a finding on guilt was arrived at, however, taking a lenient view whereby the punishment was confined to a 'censure' which was ordered to be endorsed in the Service Register, simultaneously ordering to treat the period of suspension as 'eligible leave' and thus to have it regularized.

(3.) THE 4th respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit, wherein it has been stated that 5th respondent Manager imposed Ext. P8 punishment without conducting formal enquiry under Rule 75 of Chapter XIV A of KER and hence approval sought for in respect of the proposed punishment was rejected; which in turn was subjected to challenge by filing a revision by the 5th respondent Manager under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV A KER and that the same is pending before the Government. It is because of the said turn of events, that the increments due to be paid to the petitioner could not be released by passing appropriate order. The 4th respondent/DEO has also asserted in paragraph 4 of the said counter affidavit that the course pursued by the Manager is not in conformity with Rule 75 of Chapter XIV A of KER and that the second penalty imposed by the petitioner is illegal, however, adding in the next paragraph that Ext. P5 is not a penalty vide Rule 65 of Chapter XIV A of KER.