CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

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

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


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.

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.

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.

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

 

Latest Legal News