A MOHANAN Vs. K K JOSHWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The third respondent in the writ petition is the appellant in first of these two appeals. The other is by the State of Kerala.

(2.) Ext. P7 order dated 26-2-2003 was passed, by the Government, stated to be pursuant to the direction contained in the judgment in W. A. No. 4031/01, exonerating the appellant from all the charges found against him and vacating the penalty imposed on him by the disciplinary authority. The writ petitioners challenged that order, in the writ petition. The challenge was upheld finding that the direction contained in Ext. P6 judgment in W. A. No. 4031/01 did not enable the Government to pass an order like Ext. P7 exonerating the appellant from the charges. On the other hand, the Government could, in the light of the directions contained in Para.3 of the said judgment, have only chosen between two of the alternatives made mention of therein. The learned Single Judge found that Ext. P7 was passed beyond the powers of the Government, and not as directed in Ext. P6 judgment in W. A. No. 4031/01. Therefore this appeal.

(3.) It is contended by the appellant, who is affected by the quashing of Ext. P7, that the learned Single Judge misread Ext. P6 judgment. In effect, what the Division Bench did in Ext. P6 was to give a free hand to the Government to take an independent decision. The power of the Government to pass appropriate orders on the review petition filed by the appellant had never been curtailed. The Government was free even to go beyond the earlier proposal and to pass orders, appreciating the evidence on record, as the circumstances justify. Therefore, the exoneration of the appellant from the charges levelled against him, as per Ext. P7 order was, in any way, in conformity with the direction in Ext. P6 judgment. It is further submitted that the writ petitioners did not have any locus standi to challenge Ext. P7 order, as it was one passed by the Government, the appellate authority in a disciplinary proceedings. The disciplinary action is a matter between the delinquent and disciplinary authority, and a third party like the writ petitioners did not have a say in it. The Government could, appreciating the evidence revealed during the enquiry, pass appropriate orders as the circumstances justify and even exonerating the delinquent. In such circumstances, the petitioner did not have any locus standi. It is further submitted that Ext. P7 order in no manner affects any of the vested rights of the writ petitioners to impugn the same in proceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution of India.