K S RAJU, S/O K SUDHAKARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA; REGISTRAR, (SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY), HIGH COURT OF KERALA; ADDL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT; PRINCIPAL SECRETARYTO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was a District Judge dismissed from service by virtue of Ext.P23 order of the 1st respondent-State Government, is challenging in this writ petition, Ext.P2 order of suspension issued by the High Court, the consequential disciplinary proceedings initiated against him and the order through which he was dismissed from service.

(2.) The petitioner entered service in the subordinate judiciary of the State as a Munsiff, in the year 1983, pursuant to selection made by the Kerala Public Service Commission in a special recruitment conducted for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates. He was promoted as Sub Judge in the year 1989 and subsequently as District Judge in the year 1998. Satisfactory completion of his probation in the cadre of District Judge was declared in the year 2000. While working as the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), Thiruvananthapuram, the petitioner was suspended from service with effect from 10-10-2001, by virtue of Ext.P2 order issued by the High Court. An attempt of the petitioner to challenge Ext.P2 in a writ petition before this court failed, since the case was dismissed in limine through Ext.P3 judgment, which was confirmed by a Division Bench in a Writ Appeal as per Ext.P4 judgment. A preliminary inquiry was conducted against the petitioner through the Registrar (Vigilance), High Court of Kerala. Based on the report of the enquiry Ext.P5 show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, intimating proposal for initiating disciplinary action under Rule 15 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1960, (herein after referred as CCA Rules for short) and calling for his explanations, if any. The petitioner submitted detailed reply to Ext.P5 notice, as per Ext.P6. An appeal against the order of suspension was preferred before the Hon'ble Chief Justice as provided under Rule 22 of CCA Rules. Another application for revocation of suspension was also filed under provisions of the Manual of Disciplinary Proceedings. Both the appeal as well as the request for revocation of suspension were declined through Ext.P9 proceedings issued by the High Court. Thereafter the petitioner was issued with detailed 'Memo of Charges' containing 'statement of allegations' as per Ext.P10, to which the petitioner filed written statement of defence as evidenced from Ext.P11. During pendency of the said proceedings, another 'Memo of Charge' enclosing detailed 'statement of allegations' was issued against the petitioner as per Ext.P12. The petitioner again submitted detailed written statement of defence as per Ext.P13. A Hon'ble Judge of this court was appointed as inquiring authority and a detailed enquiry was conducted by appointing a District Judge as the Presenting Officer. The inquiring authority was changed pursuant to retirement of the learned Judge appointed. A newly appointed Judge as inquiring authority had conducted the inquiry after examination of various witnesses and by marking of documents. The petitioner had adduced evidence by examining witnesses and marking of various documents. The petitioner was given liberty to submit written proof if any, and on that basis Ext.P19 was submitted before the inquiring authority. On completion of the inquiry, a detailed report as per Ext.P20 was submitted to the High Court, holding the petitioner fully guilty of charge No.(i) and partially guilty of charge No.(iv) & (v) in Ext.P10 memo dated 18-10-2002 and also partially guilty of charge No.(ii) in Ext.P12 memo dated 22-04-2003. Through the enquiry report it was recommended for dismissal of the petitioner from service, considering the grave nature of the allegation proved against him and holding that the petitioner does not deserve to hold any office connected with administration of justice. Based on the report of enquiry the High Court had issued Ext.P21 show cause proposing punishment of dismissal from service, to which the petitioner had filed Ext.P22 representation. But the High Court made recommendations to the State Government to impose the punishment of dismissal from service, based on which the Government have issued Ext.P23 proceedings awarding penalty of dismissal from service of the petitioner, with effect from the date of his suspension, i.e., from 10-10-2001, as per Rule 11 (i) & (viii) of the CCA Rules.

(3.) Aggrieved by Ext.P23 order the petitioner had approached the State Government in a Review Petition filed on 17-07-2007, as per Ext.P24. Despite two reminders submitted on 18-01-2008 and on 26-03-2008, the Government failed to consider the Review Petitions. Therefore the petitioner had approached this court in the above writ petition. During pendency of the above writ petition this court, through an order passed on 24-08-2009 in IA No.9641/2009 directed the competent authority to pass final orders on Ext.P24 Review Petition, within a time limit stipulated. Pursuant to the said order the Review Petition was considered by the Government and it was rejected through Ext.P30 proceedings issued on 25-11- 2009. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P30 order of rejection of the Review Petition also, by virtue of amendment brought in this writ petition.