legrandangle-lgm

In the facts of the case, OP (KAT) petitions are filed by both the employee and the state, challenging the order of the Administrative Tribunal of Kerala, which has directed that the disciplinary proceedings against the employee be completed within two months. The disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the employee as a criminal case has been registered against him. However, the Supreme Court ordered that the disciplinary authority could wait for the conclusion of the criminal proceedings before complying with the Tribunal’s order to conclude the disciplinary proceedings.

Referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in L.Chandra Kumar v Union of India (1997) a division bank of Judge A. Muhamed Mustaque And Justice P. Krishna Kumar said:

“Therefore, this Court has sufficient powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue the above direction even if not specifically requested in the petition filed before the Tribunal, if deemed necessary.”

Thus, it issued an order directing the disciplinary authority to await the conclusion of the criminal case in order to complete the disciplinary proceedings against the employee, even though no such compensation had previously been applied for before the Tribunal.

Background facts

According to the facts, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner, who worked as a junior superintendent in the office of the district police chief. The criminal case was filed for committing offenses punishable under Sections 341, 324,447 read with 34 of the IPC, for entering the house of a woman and assaulting her. Disciplinary proceedings have been initiated and witness statements have been recorded. The investigating officer canceled the proceedings, ordered a new investigation and issued a new charge sheet.

The Tribunal has set aside the fresh memorandum of charges and ordered a fresh inquiry stating that a government servant cannot be subjected to disciplinary action for the second time on the same charges. Based on the previous complaint, the Tribunal ordered the completion of the proceedings within two months. The Tribunal’s order is challenged in the High Court by both the State and the applicant.

The petitioner has approached the High Court stating that no disciplinary proceedings can be initiated against him on the basis of the earlier charge. He also sought to convene an ad hoc departmental promotion committee to assess the candidate’s suitability for promotion.

Observations

The State submitted that the disciplinary proceedings were initially set aside for violation of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960. It was submitted that a fresh inquiry was ordered after cancellation of the previous inquiry as the inquiry officer had not recorded the evidence of the witnesses after examination and cross-examination.

The court has held that the disciplinary authority can deviate from the findings of the investigating officer or can also conform to the findings of the investigating officer in accordance with the KCS (CC&A) Rules.

In the facts of the case, the Court held that the disciplinary authority could have issued a specific direction to record the evidence of the witnesses after examination and cross-examination. Further, the Court observed that the order of the Tribunal only provides for the closure of the disciplinary proceedings on the basis of the earlier charge and found no reason to interfere therewith.

The Court said: “Indeed, the Tribunal merely ordered that the proceedings initiated against the applicant on the basis of Annex A2 be completed within two months. We find no jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision.”

The court finds that the allegation against the petitioner is that he entered the house of a lady and assaulted her. The Court found that there was no reason to quash the disciplinary proceedings and ordered the disciplinary authority to wait for the conclusion of the criminal proceedings before concluding the disciplinary proceedings, as ordered by the Tribunal.

Relying on L Chandra Kumar v Union of India , the Court observed that the powers under Articles 226 and 227 are wide. It said:

“It is no more res integra that while this court is considering the legality of the orders of the tribunals established under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, it may well exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 was promulgated by Parliament by introducing Article 323 A into the Constitution, through the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution of India. Under Article 323A and Section 28 of the said Act, though the intention was to take away the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226, by the seven Judges of the Honorable Supreme Court in the landmark decision in L.Chandra Kumar v . Union of India (AIR 1997 SC 1125), it was held that Clause 2(d) of Article 323 A and Section 28 of the said Act, to the extent that they exclude jurisdiction. of the Supreme Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, are unconstitutional.”

The Court also clarified that the pending disciplinary proceedings would not hinder the assessment of the applicant’s suitability for promotion, as the disciplinary authority has not ordered any measures so far. It also ordered that the applicant’s promotion will be considered if necessary without waiting for the disposal of the criminal case or disciplinary action.

As such, the State’s appeal was dismissed and the applicant’s appeal was partially allowed to the above extent in view of his promotion.

Case number: M Shibu v State of Kerala & Connected matter

Case title: OP(KAT) NO. 431 OF 2024 & Connected Case

Visa: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 791