Misconduct Justifies Barring of Increments: Kerala High Court Upholds Disciplinary Action Against Revenue Officer

Share:
Allegations absence Divorced Family Assert Bail File Limitations Knowledge Licensees father DNA Affidavit Evidence Bail 258 Airport Evidence Bail Property Properties Bail Power Land DNA Land CAT Labour Issuance medical drt Application Jurisdiction Public land Bail 138 GST Intelligence Disciplinary SBI bail Family evidence driving Trusteeship 148 Criminal Sexual Assault Case Murder Divorce Woman Pay Scale bail Publication Teachers investigation bail disciplinary Non-Bailable repayment education evidence Acquittal Bail bail

 The Kerala High Court today dismissed a petition filed by a former Revenue Department officer, K. Karunanidhi, against the Kerala Administrative Tribunal’s (KAT) decision, upholding the disciplinary action taken against him. The action included barring three increments with cumulative effect due to charges of unauthorized absence, misbehaviour, and irregularities.

Legal Point of the Judgement:

The High Court’s decision reaffirms the principles of misconduct and disciplinary action within the framework of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1960. The Court examined the scope of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing that its intervention is warranted only in cases of significant legal or procedural errors.

Facts and Issues:

Karunanidhi, who served in various capacities within the Revenue Department before retiring as Deputy Tahsildar, faced charges leading to his suspension and subsequent disciplinary actions. The petitioner challenged the Tribunal’s order, arguing that it ignored previous orders absolving him of certain charges and that the penalty was harsh and procedurally flawed.

Detailed Court Assessment:

Violation of Natural Justice: The Court found no violation of natural justice as the petitioner did not participate in the enquiry despite receiving notices.

Validity of Tribunal’s Decision: The Tribunal’s decision was viewed as justified, and the charges against the petitioner were found to be uncontroverted.

Proportionality of Penalty: Considering the gravity of the petitioner’s repeated misconduct, the Court deemed the penalty of barring three increments with cumulative effect to be proportionate.

Judicial Review Limitation: The Court refrained from interfering under Article 227 as it found no substantial legal or procedural error in the Tribunal’s order.

Conclusion: The High Court, upholding the Tribunal’s decision, dismissed the OP (KAT), stating that the findings and conclusions of the Tribunal were just and did not warrant any interference.

 Date of Decision: April 4, 2024

Karunanidhi Vs State of Kerala & Others

Download Judgment

Share: