High Court of KeralaDivision BenchDisposed of with directions; petitioner may be ...
T.R. Mohanakumar v. Union of India, Rubber Board, Chairman Rubber Board, K.J. Mathew, Dr. Jayaratnam, Thomas Ouseph
Case / Petition Number:W.P.(C).No.17850 of 2010
Neutral Citation:/null
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan
- K. Vinod Chandran
- Judgment Date
- 2012-06-14
- Court Decision / Holding
- This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. The court directions permit the Central Government and Rubber Board to consider the petitioner for the post of Secretary, Rubber Board if he is found eligible, and authorize recalling Exhibit P51 (the appellate order) if necessary to facilitate such consideration, without disturbing the established findings on punishment where applicable. It leaves the matter to the competent authorities under the Rubber Act to decide.
- Final Disposition
- Disposed of with directions; petitioner may be considered for the post of Secretary, Rubber Board if found eligible; appellate order may be recalled if necessary to facilitate consideration; no interference with the punishment findings beyond the scope of this decision.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- T.R. Mohanakumar
Respondents
- Union of India
- Rubber Board
- Chairman, Rubber Board
- K.J. Mathew (Former Chairman)
- Dr. Jayaratnam (Inquiry Officer & Former Project Director, Rubber Board)
- Thomas Ouseph (Former Secretary, Rubber Board)
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Sri.T.C.Govinda Swamy
- • Sri.G.Shyam Raj
Counsels for Respondents
- • S. Parameswaran Nair (Assistant Solicitor General of India)
- • Sri Mathews K. Uthuppachan (Standing Counsel)
- • Sri Joseph Kodianthara (Senior Advocate)
- • Sri Abraham Markos
- • Sri M. Mathews K. Uthuppachan
- • Sri V. Abraham Markos
- • Sri Binu Mathew
Case Synopsis & Summary
This writ petition (W.P.(C).No.17850 of 2010) arises after the petitioner, T.R. Mohanakumar, faced disciplinary proceedings and punishment while serving with Rubber Board. The Division Bench, in a previously decided batch of writ petitions consolidated with Mohanakumar v. Chairman, Rubber Board (2008 (4) KHC 20), held that the findings of the Enquiry Officer cannot be treated as violative of principles of natural justice and that the findings/punishments are not per se illegal for judicial review under Article 226. It was noted that the petitioner had not pursued the statutory appellate remedy, limiting the scope for reassessment by the higher judicial authority. The current judgment acknowledges that the earlier decision governs the field, but also explains that the appellate authority may, in a statutory appeal, reassess findings of fact by the domestic enquiry notwithstanding the earlier order’s stance. The petitioner now contends for consideration for the post of Secretary, Rubber Board. The Court clarifies that appointment is a matter for the Central Government and Rubber Board and that it may recall the appellate order if necessary to facilitate consideration, leaving such action to the appropriate authorities. Ultimately, the court disposes of the petition with directions to potentially consider the petitioner for the Secretary post if eligible, without disturbing the earlier punishment findings where appropriate.
Provisions of Law Cited
Constitution of India, Article 226The Rubber Board Act (Rubber Act)
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Principles of natural justice
- Judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioner contends that the punishment order and the findings of the domestic enquiry should not bar consideration for the post of Secretary, Rubber Board. He seeks recall of the appellate order if necessary and urges that the statutory appellate remedy not be foreclosed by prior judicial observations. He relies on the principle that the Division Bench judgment Mohanakumar v. Chairman, Rubber Board supports avoiding perverse findings and notes that the appellate authority could, in principle, re-evaluate materials in a statutory appeal.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents submit that the petition is to be resolved within the framework of the Rubber Board Act and the statutory appellate remedy. They argue that the earlier Mohanakumar decision already upheld the findings and punishment against judicial interference under Article 226 and that appointment to the post of Secretary is not an obligation but a discretionary matter for the Rubber Board and Central Government. They caution against ad hoc challenges via repeated petitions and emphasize reliance on the appellate mechanism; they contend that the appellate authority may recall the order if appropriate to facilitate consideration.
Cited Precedents (6)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mohanakumar v. Chairman, Rubber Board | 2008 (4) KHC 20 | Positive | Cited as precedent; the Division Bench held that Enquiry Officer findings cannot be treated as violative of natural justice and that the punishment/findings are not subject to interference under Article 226, guiding the present court's approach. |
| Mohd. Yunus Khan v. State of U.P. & Ors. | 2010 (10) SCC 539 | Mentioned Only | Exhibit P60 (petitioner’s exhibit) references this Supreme Court decision but the judgment in question does not rely on its principles to decide the matter. |
| B.S. Jayasree v. Director of Public Instruction | 2002 (1) KLJ 694 | Mentioned Only | Exhibit P61 cited; treated merely as a reference rather than a controlling authority in the decision. |
| Supreme Court in CA 6272/1999 | CA 6272/1999 | Mentioned Only | Annexure II refers to a Supreme Court order; used as a reference without direct doctrinal reliance. |
| O.P. No. 8118 of 2000 | O.P. No.8118/2000 | Mentioned Only | Cited as part of the procedural history; not applied as a binding precedent in the present decision. |
| W.A.No.1544/2000 in O.P.No.8118/2000 | W.A.No.1544/2000 | Mentioned Only | Part of the appellate history cited in support of context; no direct doctrinal reliance. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against T.R. Mohanakumar v. Union of India, Rubber Board, Chairman Rubber Board, K.J. Mathew, Dr. Jayaratnam, Thomas Ouseph and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.
## IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:-
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/24TH JYAISHTA 1934
## **W.P.(C).No.17850 of 2010 (E)**
---------------------------------------------------
PETITIONER:-
---------------------
T.R.MOHANAKUMAR, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.A.G.RAMAN NAIR, (EX-DEPUTY SECRETARY, RUBBER BOARD, COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM) RESIDING AT 'MADHURIMA', OLD BAZAR, ARTHOOTY, KOTTAYAM-686001.
BY ADVS.SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY SRI.G.SHYAM RAJ.
## RESPONDENTS:-
-------------------------
## 1. UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY, UDYOG BHAVAN, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI - 110 011.
2. THE RUBBER BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 002.
3. THE CHAIRMAN, RUBBER BOARD, COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 002.
4. SHRI.K.J.MATHEW, (FORMER CHAIRMAN, RUBBER BOARD),
EX-OFFICIO CHAIRPERSON, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION, KPFC BHAVANAM, C.V.RAMAN PILLAI ROAD, VELLAYAMBALAM, TRIVANDRUM - 695 010, (RESIDING AT PLOT NO.4, IAS COLONY, KUTHIRAKKATTU, VATTYIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 013.
W.P.(C).NO.17850 OF 2010-E
- 2 -
## 5. DR.JAYARATNAM
(INQUIRY OFFICER & FORMER PROJECT DIRECTOR RUBBER BOARD, KOTTAYAM) JAYAS, KALTHIPPADY, VADAVATHOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM - 695 013.
## 6. SHRI.THOMAS OUSEPH,
(FORMER SECRETARY, RUBBER BOARD, KOTTAYAM), THOPPIL HOUSE, KEEZHUKUNNU, KOTTAYAM - 686 002.
R1 BY ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR. R2 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHAN. R3 BY ADV.SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA (SENIOR ADVOCATE)
SRI.ABRAHAM MARKOS SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHAN TERRY V. JAMES JOHN PRAKASH B.J. TOM THOMAS KAKKUZHIYIL. R4 & R5 BY ADV.SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS.
BY ADV. SRI.BINU MATHEW
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
## W.P.(C).NO.17850 OF 2010
## **APPENDIX**
## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-**
- **EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.2/98 DATED 5.2.1998 RELEASED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DARTED 14.02.1998.**
- **EXT.P2 : PHOTO COPY OF THE ORDER NO.17/2/98/PLANT (b) DATED 29.04.1998 APPOINTING SHRI THOMAS OUSEPH, 6TH RESPONDENT HEREIN, AS SECRETARY TO THE BOARD.**
- **EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT/ORDER IN OP.NO.13652/98(A) DATED 18.3.99 OPF THIS COURT.**
- **EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DT.23.03.1999 OF THE CHAIRMAN, RUBBER BOARD FILED BEFORE THE HIGH COURT IN CMP.NO.2034/99 IN W.A.NO.831/1999.**
- **EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 12.07.1999 OF THIS COURT IN W.A.NOS.831, 852 AND 909 OF 1999.**
- **EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF OFFICE ORDER NO.22/2/99/EST DARTED 9.7.99 OF THE RUBBER BOARD.**
- **EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NOS.1/5/1/99/BS/EST DATED 11 NOVEMBER 1999 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY SECRETARY (P&A) OF RUBBER BOARD.**
- **EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NOS.1/5/1/99/BS/EST DATED 12TH NOVEMBER 1999 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY SECRETARY (P&A) OF RUBBER BOARD.**
- **EXT.P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE DATED 16.11.1999 OF THE PETITIONER.**
- **EXT.P10 : TRUE COPY OF OFFICE NOTE BEARING NO.1/5/138/99/BS/EST DATED 26.11.99 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF RUBBER BOARD.**
- **EXT.P11 : TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE NOTE DATED 29.11.99 OF THE PETITIONER.**
- **EXT.P12 : TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.1/5/138/99/BS/EST DATED 14.12.1999 OF THE DEPUTY SECRETARY (P&A) AND THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE 138TH MEETING OF THE BOARD.**
- **EXT.P13 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NO.SLP/13873/99/LEG DATED 29.11.1999 OF THE 2ND/4TH RESPONDENT.**
- **EXT.P14 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.15/COM/99-VIG. DATED 14.12.99, ISSUED BY THE 3RD/4TH RESPONDENT PLACING THE PETITIONER UNDER SUSPENSION.**
- **EXT.P15 : TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO.2/15/4/99/0-CORR/EST DATED 13.12.1999 OF THE 3ND RESPONDENT RUBBER BOARD.**
- **EXT.P16 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE NOTE BEARING NO.1/42/99/EST DATED 10.12.1999 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT RUBBER BOARD.**
- **EXT.P17 : TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 21.12.99 ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.**
## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-**
- **EXT.P18 : TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF CHARGES NO/.C1/1/2000-VIG. DATED 28.1.2000 ISSUED BYU THE CHAIRMAN, RUBBER BOARD TO THE PETITIONER.**
- **EXT.P19 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.C1/1/2000-VG. DATED 21.2.2000 APPOINTING DR.JAYARATNAM AS THE INQUIRY OFFICER.**
- **EXT.P20 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10.03.2000 OF THE PETITIONERR ADDRESSED TO THE 3RD/4TH RESPONDENT AND INQUIRY OFFICER.**
- **EXT.P21 : TRUE COPY OF LETTER BEARING NO.C1/1/2000-VIG. DATED 13.3.2000 OF THE 3RD/4TH RESPONDENT.**
- **EXT.P22 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17.03.2000 OF THE PETITIONER.**
- **EXT.P23 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE INQUIRY HELD FROM 10.3.2000 TO 31.3.2000.**
- **EXT.P24 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24.03.2000 OF THE PETITIONER DDRESSED TO 5TH RESPONDENT.**
- **EXT.P25 : TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENTS NOTE DATED 14.04.2000 OF THE PETITIOENR SUBMITTED TO THE INQUIRY OFFICER.**
- **EXT.P26 : TRUE COPY OF THE INQUIRY REPORT DATED 25.04.2000. EXT.P27 : TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM NO.C1/1/2000-VIG. DATED 2.5.2000 ISSUED BY 3RD/4TH RESPONDENT.**
- **EXT.P28 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 13.05.2000 OF THE PETITIONER.**
- **EXT.P29 : TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 29.05.2000 OF THIS COURT IN O.P. NO.8118 OF 2000.**
- **EXT.P30 : TRUE COPY OF DISMISSAL ORDER C1/1/2000-VIG. DATED 6.6.2000 PASSED BY 4TH RESPONDENT.**
- **EXT.P31 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.08.2000 IN W.A.NO.1544/2000 IN O.P.NO.8118/2000.**
- **EXT.P32 : TRUE COPY OF STATUTORY APPEAL DATED 4.9.2000 OF THE PETITIONER SUBMITTED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.**
- **EXT.P33 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30L.03.2001 OF THIS COURT IN O.P.NO.11101 OF 2001.**
- **EXT.P34 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.6/1/99-PLANT(C) DATED 19.06.2001 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.**
- **EXT.P35 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.02.2002 OF THIS COURT IN O.P.NO.20864/2001.**
- **EXT.P36 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.6.15.2001-PLANT (C) DATED14.08.2002 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT/APPELLATE AUTHORITY.**
- **EXT.P37 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.01.2003 IN C.A.6272/74/1999 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT.**
- **EXT.P38 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.02.2003 IN O.P. NO.26416/2002 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.**
## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-**
- **EXT.P39 : TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE NOTE NO.C1/1/2000-VIG DATED 24.04.2003 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.**
- **EXT.P40 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESEENTATION DATED 05.05.2003 OF THE PETITIONER.**
- **EXT.P41 : TRUE COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER NO.C1/1/2000-VIG. DATED 25.06.2003 PASSED BY RUBBER BOARD.**
- **EXT.P42 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 1.7.2003 OF THIS COURT IN I.A.NO.619 OF 2003 IN W.A.NO.591 OF 2003 WITHIOUT THE CAUSE TITLE.**
- **EXT.P43 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.07.2005 IN W.ANOS.591 OF 2003 AND 1048 OF 2003 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.**
- **EXT.P44 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.6/11/2002-PLANT-C DATED 14.10.2003 PASSED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY.**
- **EXT.P45 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 5.9.2008 PASSED BY THIS COURT IN W.P.(C).NO.21779/2003, W.P.(C).NO.25070/2005 AND W.P.(C).NO.6284/2007 AS REPORTED IN 2008 (4) KHC 20 (DB).**
- **EXT.P46 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 7.8.2009 OF THIS COURT IN RP.NO.276/09.**
- **EXT.P47 : TRUE COPY OF SYNOPSIS AND APPEAL DATED 30.08.2009 OF THE PETITIONER ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.**
- **EXT.P48 : TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER DATED 11.03.2010 OF THE PETITIOER ADDRESSED TO 1ST RESPONDENT.**
- **EXT.P49 : TRUE COPY OF IMPUGNED UNDATED AND UNSIGNED ORDER BEARING F.NO.6/6/2009-PLANT(C) RECEIVED FROM THE 1ST RESPPONDENT.**
- **EXT.P50 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17.03.2010 OF THE PETITIONER ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.**
- **EXT.P51 : TRUE COPY OF THE IMPUGNED LETTER F.NO.6.6.2009-PLANT(C) DATED 25.03.2010 ENCLOSING THEREWITH A PHOTO COPY OF ORDER F.NO.6.6.2009-PLANT (C) DATED02.02.2010 FROM THE OFFICE OF 1ST RESPONDENT.**
- **EXT.P52 : TRUE COPY OF LAWYER NOTICE DATED 09.04.2010 SERVED ON THE 1ST RESPONDENT.**
- **EXT.P53 : TRUE COPY OF NOTICE OF RETIREMENT DATED 05.10.2006 OF THE PETITIONER.**
- **EXT.P54 : TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM NO.2/40/1926/2006/EST DATED 7TH NOVEMBER 2006 OF THE RUBBER BOARD.**
- **EXT.P55 : TRUE COPY OF PETITIONER'S REPRESENTATION DATED 29.11.2006. EXT.P56 : TRUE COPOY OF OM NO.2/40/1926/ESDT. DATED 12.12.2006 OF RUBBER BOARD.**
- **EXT.P57 : TRUE COPY OF OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO.2/16/SB-1926/2007/RES. DATED 15TH JANUARY 2007 OF THE RUBBER BOARD.**
## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-**
- **EXT.P58 : TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM NO.C1/1/2000-VIG DATED 21.0-3.2000 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY.**
- **EXT.P59 : TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSLATED VERSION OF DEPOSITION OF PW1 SDUBMITTED IN EXT.P47 APPEAL.**
- **EXT.P60 : PHOTO COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MOHD.YUNUS KHAN VS. STATE OF U.P. & ORS., 2010 (10) SCC 539.**
- **EXT.P61 : PHOTO COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF B.S.JAYASREE V. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION (2002) 1 KLJ 694.**
- **EXT.P62 : PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER DATED 14.01.2003 OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CA.6272/1999.**
- **EXT.P63 : PHOTO COPY OF REFERENCE ORDER DATED 18.07,2008 IN WPC NO.21779/2003, 25070/2005 AND 6284/2007.**
- **EXT.P64 : TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION DATED 17.02.2012 COLLECTED BY THE PETITIOENR FROM THE WEBSITE htpp://www.davp.nic.in/WriteReadData/ADS/eng 05101 7 1112b.pdf INVITING APPLICATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF SECRETARY, RUBBER BOARD.**
- **EXT.P62 (Produced : TRUE REPRODUCTION OF REMARKS OF THE REVIEWING OFFICERS along with reply (CHAIRMEN, RUBBER BOARD) ON THE PETITIONER IN affidavit dt.5.3.2012) CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS COLLECTED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005, COMPLIED BY THE PETITIONER.**
- **ANNEXURE I : TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.682100-14844 DATED 22.10.2010 OF THE DEPUYTY MANAGER, DEPT. OF POST.**
- **ANNEXURE II : TRUE COPUY OF LETTER DATED 26.10.2010 OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER.**
- **ANNEXIRE III : TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.682100-14844 DATRED 03.11.2010 OF DEPT. OF POST.**
## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:**
**NIL.**
**//true copy//**
**vku/-**
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & K. Vinod Chandran, JJ ---------------------------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.17850 of 2010-E
---------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 14[th] day of June, 2012
## **JUDGMENT**
## Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,J.:
Facing disciplinary proceedings and having suffered an order of punishment, the petitioner moved this Court. Ultimately, a bunch of writ petitions filed by him was taken up by the Division Bench and decided as per the judgment reported as _**Mohanakumar v. Chairman, Rubber Board**_ [2008 (4) KHC 20]. It was categorically found therein that the findings of the Enquiry Officer cannot be treated as violative of principles of natural justice or perverse. It was noted that the findings of the disciplinary authority cannot be treated as patently illegal, or the punishment imposed as shockingly disproportionate, to be visited by this Court in judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Of course, the Bench had also noted that not having taken recourse to the statutory appellate remedy
**WP(C).No.17850 of 2010**
**- 2 -**
available against the disciplinary order and punishment order, the employee had suffered the situation where there was no further scope for assimilation of materials by the statutory appellate authority. The Bench also held that the punishment imposed is not disproportionate considering the charges proved in the domestic enquiry. With all that the writ petitions filed by the petitioner stood dismissed.
2. Later the petitioner, statedly after a futile attempt before the Apex Court, filed a review petition. That was decided as per Exhibit P46. Reading paragraph 4 of Exhibit P46 order, we are clear in our mind that none of the findings contained in Exhibit P45, which we have noted above, have been specifically vacated in exercise of the power of review. What has been done is to give the appellate authority the freedom to decide a statutory appeal untrammelled by anything stated in Exhibit P45. This means that any finding of fact by the
**WP(C).No.17850 of 2010**
**- 3 -**
domestic enquiry authority and those contained in the punishment order could have been interfered with by the appellate authority, notwithstanding the finding in Exhibit P45 that there was no ground for judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. For all intent and purposes, Exhibit P45 has to govern the field. We would also sound the word of caution; to the effect that repeated scouting to the superior courts in such matters should not only be discouraged, but also deserve to be viewed seriously even when certain issues get left open by the administrative department.
3. Be that as it may, by now it appears that the petitioner would have suffered the punishment imposed; his present stand is that he may be considered for appointment as the Secretary of the Rubber Board. That is an exercise to be carried out by the Central Government. We can never insist that appointment has to be made on the basis of any earlier notification. It is
**WP(C).No.17850 of 2010**
**- 4 -**
left to the wisdom of the Rubber Board and Central Government to notify the vacancy, if it still subsists. If the petitioner is eligible for being considered, that again is a matter for the competent authority under the Rubber Act to consider it. If the Central Government feels that there is any hitch owing to the continuance of Exhibit P51, the present appellate order, it would be at liberty to recall that order, if it deems it appropriate to do so, to pave way for consideration of the petitioner's request, if any, for being reckoned for the post of Secretary of the Rubber Board.
This writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan Judge.
Sd/K. Vinod Chandran Judge
vku/150612