LAWS(KER)-2024-4-5

K. KARUNANIDHI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Decided On April 04, 2024
K. Karunanidhi Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KERALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner challenges Order dtd. 14/11/2022 of Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (KAT) dismissing O.A.No.160 of 2019 filed by him. The said OA was filed by the petitioner challenging Annexure A16 and A18 Orders issued by the 2nd and 1st respondents respectively whereby three increments of the petitioner were barred with cumulative effect.

(2.) The facts in brief:

(3.) Respondents filed reply statements in the OA and the Reply statements filed by the 1st and 2nd respondents are more or less on similar lines. They controverted the averments of the petitioner in the OA and inter alia stated that the petitioner is a regular offender in terms of unauthorized absence from duty, misbehaviour and also for irregularities and serious lapses like loss of service book kept in office under his care and custody. Learned Government pleader referring to Annexures A11 and A15 pointed out repeated and recurring instances of violations perpetrated by the petitioner. Various actions initiated against the petitioner including a vigilance case have been referred to by the respondents in their reply. That three opportunities for hearing were intimated to the petitioner by the Enquiry officer before issuing Annexure A15 enquiry report and that the petitioner did not choose to participate inspite of such intimation has also been pointed out. The reply also stated that after giving the formal enquiry report to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent had heard the petitioner on 21/6/2017 and that he had preferred a defence statement. That the arguments of the petitioner were duly considered and that records relating to his disciplinary action were verified by the 2nd respondent prior to issuing the show cause notice dtd. 7/7/2017 was also averred in the reply statements. The respondents thus contended that Annexures A16 and A 18 are legal, sustainable and that considering the gravity of the offences committed by the petitioner the punishment of imposing a penalty of barring 3 annual increments with cumulative effect is proper.