S.D.JEYAPRASAD Vs. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD senior learned counsel arguing for the appellant and the Government Pleader.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that by virtue of Ext.P6 punishment of censure was imposed on the present appellant. On an earlier occasion, writ petition No. 11235/10 along with writ petition No. 20211/10 came to be disposed of by the Division Bench. The fact remains, several observations were made so far this appellant is concerned at paragraphs 4 and 13 of the judgment. Subsequently, the observations made against this appellant in the Division Bench judgment came to be challenged by this appellant in S.L.P. before the Apex Court. Senior counsel informes that the observations made against this appellant pertaining to inaction on the part of the Government is stayed. When the matters stood as stated above, filing a review by this appellant invoking Rule 35 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960 came to be entertained by the Government as per the directions of this Court in Ext.P14. As a matter of fact, Ext.P14 only says to consider the review petition filed by the appellant within two months. While considering the review petition, the authority concerned virtually withdrew the punishment of censure against the appellant.

(3.) SURPRISINGLY , said Principal Secretary Mr. James Varghese is not at all disturbed with this observations by the learned Single Judge in the order impugned before us. But the appellant is before us who is not at all affected by this observation of the learned Single Judge by order dated 11.9.2012. However, according to learned senior counsel this observation may affect the petitioner while considering the writ petition on merits. Therefore, he has challenged the impugned order.