SAJI Vs. DISTRICT COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) The only point urged in support of the Writ Appeal is that the District and Sessions Judge on the basis of whose direction the process against the appellant was set into motion, should not have been acted any further in the matter. But he acted as enquiry officer, disciplinary authority and imposed penalty. After the disposal of the appeal preferred by the appellant before this Court, the action was challenged in the Original Petition which was dismissed on the ground that there is ample material to justify the punishment imposed. But, no definite finding was recorded so far as the appellant's specific stand of violation of principles of natural justice.

(3.) The factual position needs to be noted in brief. Appellant was proceeded against for alleged mis-conduct. He was found to have delivered some official documents unauthorisedly. Statements were recorded from the persons who allegedly knew about the misdemeanor. A departmental enquiry was conducted and final order of punishment was passed. In the entire process, the District and Sessions Judge was the key officer. That is the main ground of attack to attach vulnerability to the action. Learned counsel for the State with reference to R.15 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960 (in short the 'Rules') submitted that in the matter of imposing major penalties, it is inevitable that the appointing authority or the disciplinary authority has to do the needful. He relies on R.15(2)(b) for the purpose.