Decided on August 22,1963

Balakrishnan Ezhuthassan Appellant
Director Of Transports And Another Respondents


- (1.)In this writ petition, Mr. V. R. Krishna Iyer, learned counsel for the petitioner, no doubt, challenges the entire disciplinary proceedings initiated as against his client. But that question does not now arise; because the limited point that has now to be considered is regarding the order Ext. P4, passed by the State Government, invoking the provisions of R.34 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1960. R.34, occurring in Part VII, dealing with, without the proviso, Review, is as follows:
"State Government's power to review.

Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the State Government may, on their own motion or otherwise, after calling for the records of the case, review any order passed by a subordinate authority which is made or is appealable under these rules or the rules repealed by R.39, and after consultation with the Commission where such consultation is necessary:-

(a) confirm, modify or set aside the order;

(b) impose any penalty or set aside, reduce, confirm or enhance the penalty imposed by the order;

(c) remit the case to the authority which made the order or to any other authority directing such further action or enquiry as they consider proper in the circumstances of the case; or -

(d) pass such other order as they deem fit."

It is seen that section must have been taken on the basis of R.34(b) quoted above. The proviso, occurring in that is not necessary and that is not extracted.

(2.)It will be seen that the petitioner was alleged to have found guilty of certain misconduct and accordingly, the District Transport Officer, Alwaye framed the charge contained in Ext. P5. The petitioner appears to have controverted the allegations that have been made in the said charge sheet and ultimately, under Ext. P6 dated 14-8-1960, the District Transport Officer, has no doubt, recorded findings to the effect that the charges framed as against the petitioner are proved. It is not really necessary for me to consider the correctness or otherwise of the findings recorded by the District Transport Officer as against the petitioner. No doubt, Mr. V. R. Krishna Iyer, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged that the Enquiry Officer, has thoroughly mis-understood the nature of the charges and the explanation furnished by the petitioner as well as the findings on the charges and therefore, the findings are really not supported by the materials in the case; nor even justified by the charges framed as against the petitioner. But as I mentioned earlier, it is not necessary for me to go into all those aspects at present.
(3.)On the basis of these findings, recorded in Ext. P6, the punishing authority, namely, the Director of Transport passed the order Ext. P1. The only aspect to be noted therein, is the imposition of a punishment, as against the petitioner, by way of reducing him permanently to the lowest rank among the permanent lower division clerks in the seniority list.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.