GLORY FERNANDEZ Vs. HIGH COURT OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the basis of an anonymous complaint action was initiated against the petitioner. The District Judge conducted enquiry with regard to the allegations and reported to the first respondent that there is no substance in the allegations. As per orders of the first respondent a further enquiry was conducted by the Vigilance Cell of the High Court. A charge sheet (Ext. P1) was issued, to the petitioner on 3.7.1986. He filed explanation on 3-8-1986 denying the charges. His explanation has been marked as Ext P2. The first respondent as per Order dated 31-10-1986 ordered departmental enquiry against the petitioner. The Third Additional District Judge, Ernakulam was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. On the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer (Ext. P7) the first respondent directed the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service as per Ext. P8. Petitioner submitted Ext. P9 reply to Ext. P8. His explanation was found not acceptable and Ext. P10 order of dismissal was issued.

(2.) Petitioner filed Ext. P11 appeal under R.23(a) and Note 1 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules before the second respondent against Ext. P10 order. The appeal was submitted before the first respondent for the purpose of forwarding it to the second respondent Appellate Authority. But, without forwarding the same petitioner was informed as per Ext. P12 that having regard to the control vested in the High Court over the Subordinate Courts under Art.235 of the Constitution of India the High Court is the final authority in disciplinary proceedings against the members of the subordinate judiciary, and no appeal against its decision lies to the Government. Accordingly the appeal petition addressed to the Government was withheld by the first respondent.

(3.) Though several contentions have been raised in the writ petition, the only contention urged before us by petitioner's counsel is that withholding of the appeal petition addressed to the Government by the first respondent was without any justification and that the reasons stated in Ext. P12 cannot be sustained. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Art.235 of the Constitution really enables the petitioner to file appeal before the second respondent and there was no rhyme or reason for the first respondent to have withheld the same. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the High Court being the appointing authority of the petitioner is not subordinate to the Government and so petitioner could not have filed appeal under R.23 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and hence no interference is warranted against Ext. P12 order.