NARAYANANKUTTY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge is against Exts. P6 and P10. Ext. P6 is a final order passed in a disciplinary action initiated against the petitioner as well. The only penalty imposed is recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,732/- from the petitioner. Ext. P6 is the order imposing that penalty. That was appealed against by the petitioner. In Ext. P10, while the appeal was being considered, the Government thought of enhancing the penalty imposed on the incumbents under R.31(2)(e) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. An opportunity was given as provided for in the proviso to the said rule. After considering the explanation, confirming the punishment already proposed, Government also ordered that next two increments of the petitioner would be barred with cumulative effect. This is also another minor penalty. The effect of the appellate order is that two penalties, are imposed.

(2.) Under R.31(2) of the Rules while considering an appeal, the appellate authority can consider imposition of an enhanced penalty, if it is of an opinion that the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority is inadequate. As per R.31(2)(e)(i) the appellate authority can pass orders "setting aside, reducing, confirming or enhancing the penalty". It can do only any of these and not more than one. Reading of Ext. P10 shows that the appellate authority has passed order to withhold the increment "with cumulative effect in addition to the recovery of Rs. 1,732/-". But recovery was ordered as per Ext. P6 which was appealed against. The appellate authority cannot both confirm the penalty appealed against and impose an enhanced penalty. Thus Ext. P 10 is violative of R.31(2)(e)(i) of the said rules.

(3.) But, the challenge of the petitioner against Ext. P6 cannot be accepted. What is imposed is only a minor penalty and necessary formalities and procedures for imposition of minor penalty of recovery of loss caused to the Government had been followed before Ext. P6 order was issued. There is no violation of principles of natural justice. This court cannot re-appreciate the evidence and substitute the findings. When the disciplinary authority has thus, in Ext. P6 after appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case imposed a minor penalty, under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, this court shall not, under ordinary circumstances, set aside that penalty unless it is perverse or based on no evidence. The petitioner has not substantiated before me that Ext. P6 is a perverse order or that it is without any evidence or materials. Moreover the penalty imposed on the petitioner is only recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,732/-.