Sunilkumar S., an A-class contractor, challenged the tender process for the “construction of a compound wall at the proposed centre for G.V. Raja Sports School at Meenamkulam – Balance work.” The Sports Kerala Foundation, under the Directorate of Sports & Youth Affairs, invited bids; bids opened on 06.09.2022 with the third respondent declared lowest despite defects, while the petitioner was second lowest. The tender documents required online submission via Digital Signature Certificate and hard copies by the opening date. The third respondent’s tender was flagged for defects: preliminary agreement not duly filled, scanned copies of signed affidavits, Integrity Pact, requisition for e-payment not submitted online, and an inadequately filled tender form. Despite these defects, the second respondent allowed the third respondent to cure defects and submit corrected hard copies on 13.09.2022. The petitioner objected, claiming illegality in allowing cure and seeking quashing of Exts.P7 and P9 and directing award to the second lowest bidder. Respondents argued that the bid was substantially responsive after cure, citing Clause 5.4.2 (substantially responsive bids) and 6.1 (award to lowest responsive bid) of the tender, and that the court should show deference to the tendering authority; Ext.P10 was invoked to justify treating certain defects as minor. The High Court held that extending cure for a major defect violates Article 14 of the Constitution, set aside the tender award to the third respondent, and directed that the work be awarded to the petitioner as the next lowest bidder, emphasizing transparency and fairness in public procurement.
WP(C) Nos.16208, 16250, 16261, 16281 & 16283 of 2012 These writ petitions were filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by five Ayurvedic/Unani practitioners challenging actions by the State of Kerala, the Travancore-Cochin Medical Councils, the Central Council of Indian Medicine (CCIM) and the Union Government with respect to registration, exemptions and recognition of Ayurvedic/Unani practitioners. Petitioners Dr. P. Madhusoodanan; Dr. K.R. Saji; Dr. M.S. Sreeraj Sreenivasan; Dr. E.S. Srimanikandadas; and Dr. T.M. Vishnudasan sought relief against regulatory measures affecting their professional status, citing various Government Orders, Notifications and certificates (Exhibits P1–P16). The respondents included the State government, the Travancore-Cochin Medical Councils, CCIM, and the Union of India. On 3 March 2022, after hearing, both sides relied on a controlling precedent: Central Council of Indian Medicine and others v. State of Kerala and others (2020 KHC 759). The court held that the petitioners’ contentions are covered by that decision and dismissed the petitions in light of it, while keeping open any other grievances. The judgment underscores consistency with the cited ruling and does not adjudicate beyond that precedent, though it preserves any independent challenges the petitioners may later raise.
Richu Hannah Joy and Ron Sam Joy, the petitioners, are the legal heirs of Late Leelamma K who served the Kerala State Co-operative Bank for over two decades and retired in 2017. They challenge the insistence on a maximum gratuity capped at Rs. 10 lakhs under Rule 59(iii) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules and seek higher gratuity in terms of Section 4(5) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (POG Act). They rely on Chandrasekharan Nair v. Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank (Full Bench, 2017) which held that an employee of a cooperative society, covered by both the POG Act and Kerala Co-operative Regulations, is entitled to a higher gratuity under Section 4(5), even if the default amount under Section 4(2) is lesser. The petition cites earlier Kerala High Court rulings (W.P.(C) No.27507/2013; W.P.(C) No.1023/2019) and a Supreme Court order in SLP Nos. 9446–9451/2018, affirmed as Exhibit P7, to support the claim. The respondent Bank contends that the statutory regime, including the 2010 amendment and the provisos to Rule 59, caps gratuity where the Act does not apply, and that relief under Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act is the proper remedy. The Court ultimately holds in favour of the petitioners, directing disbursement of the higher gratuity with 9% interest from retirement, within three months, and to consider any retrospective salary revision affecting the amount.
BAIL APPL. Nos.4985 & 5000 OF 2025 The High Court of Kerala, in a common order disposing of two connected Bail Applications (Nos. 4985 & 5000 of 2025) filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, deals with Crime No. 681/2025 of Changanassery Police Station. The petitioners, accused Nos. 2 and 3, are alleged along with accused No. 1 to have confronted the defacto complainant in the early hours of 30.03.2025, with the first accused allegedly inflicting a knife wound while the others assaulted him. The prosecution indexes Sections 115(2), 118(1), 351(2), and 3(5) BNSS, with Sec. 118(2) added by the Public Prosecutor. The petitioners’ counsel contends that even if the facts are admitted, there is no grave overt act by them and they are ready to comply with stringent conditions for bail. The Public Prosecutor opposes, noting the petitioners’ involvement in another case (in BA 4985). The Court notes that the primary overt act is attributed to accused 1; the others allegedly struck with their hands. Relying on decisions like Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, Siddharth v. State (UP), Joginder Kumar, and Manish Sisodia, the Court grants bail with conditions: appearance before the IO within two weeks for interrogation, Rs. 50,000 bond with two sureties, cooperation with investigation, avoidance of any inducement or threat, and no leaving the country, among others. The order emphasizes bail as the rule and arrest only as the exception, with the possibility of canceling bail for violations.
This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal (MACA No. 1058 of 2014) before the Kerala High Court, arising from an award under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Thrissur. The appellant Sasikumar, an autorickshaw driver, sustained serious injuries in a motor vehicle collision on 08.07.2006 involving a lorry on the Wadakkanchery-C Chelakkara road. The Tribunal found negligence on the part of the driver, awarded Rs. 80,750 in total compensation, and directed the insurer to pay. The appellant challenges the quantum, arguing the Tribunal erred in fixing income, disability, and several heads of compensation. The respondent insurer admitted the accident and policy but denied negligence. In addressing the appeal, the High Court examines the appropriate notional income for an autorickshaw driver in 2006, citing Ramachandrappa; notes that the disability certificate shows 6% disability, but the Tribunal reduced it to 3% without valid justification, and follows established jurisprudence (Pranay Sethi, Sarla Verma) to apply 40% future prospects and a multiplier of 15. The court increases past losses, awards enhanced damages for pain, suffering, loss of amenities, extra nourishment, and disability, and computes a revised total of Rs. 2,20,300. The appeal is allowed in part; the insurer is directed to deposit this amount with interest at 8% per annum within two months, and the Tribunal is to disburse the amount upon deposit. The decision is signed by Judge C. Pratheep Kumar.
This is a bail application (BA No.4922 of 2025) by Sunil Kumar N, the accused in Crime No.292/2025 of Maranalloor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, under sections 329(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property (PDPP) Act, 1984. The petitioner, President of the Parents Teachers Association of Govt. L.P. School, Punnavoor, Maranalloor, is alleged to have trespassed into the school compound between 08-09 March 2025, damaged the playing area, cut two trees, and caused Rs.1,75,000/- in damages to the school. The prosecution contends mischief and damage to public property in the course of renovation-related works. The petitioner argues the allegations are unfounded, pointing to Annexures-2 to-4 showing a renovation plan (contract for construction of an additional class room and shifting/removal of trees) and asserting the defacto complainant has no independent basis, with the petitioner ready to comply with conditions, including a monetary deposit. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, asserting liability under the PDPP Act. The Court notes absence of expert damage assessment but finds the facts and Annexures justify release on bail with safeguards. Relying on Hemachandran M.T. @ Kamalesh, Chidambaram, Siddharth, Manish Sisodia and other authorities, the Court ultimately grants bail with conditions: appearance before IO within one month, deposit of Rs.50,000 with two sureties, ongoing cooperation, non-leave without permission, and possible later bail cancellation if conditions are violated.
This writ appeal challenges the order of a learned Single Judge dismissing WP(C) No. 36780 of 2018, which sought promotion by transfer of Akhilesh Ravi C, a Bachelor of Engineering (Civil) holder, from a lower cadre to the post of Tradesman (Plumber) at NSS College of Engineering, Palakkad. The appellant contends that his BE (Civil) qualification is an equivalent or higher qualification for the Tradesman (Plumber) post, arguing that the Special Rules of 2012 allow higher qualifications to be treated as fulfilling prescribed requirements in Rule 4, given the Trade-specific knowledge embedded in engineering studies. The respondents maintain that only the specified qualifications in Rule 4 of the Special Rules apply, and that the petitioner’s BE degree does not satisfy the “specialisation in the appropriate trade” criterion. The court reviews Rule 3 (appointment by transfer) and Rule 4 (qualifications) of the Kerala Technical Education Subordinate Service Special Rules, 2012, and considers precedents such as Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala PSC and Latha v. State of Kerala. It concludes that Jyoti K.K. is not applicable to the facts, as the case involved different qualification dynamics; and it relies on Latha to emphasize that the prescribed TTC/technical qualifications cannot be diluted by higher degrees unrelated to the specific trade in question. Ultimately, the Division Bench dismisses the writ appeal and affirms the impugned judgment, holding that higher technical qualifications do not automatically substitute for the enumerated trade qualifications. The court closes all pending interlocutory applications.
BAIL APPL. NO. 5032 OF 2025 This High Court of Kerala bail application concerns Mohammed Hashim P.Y., the fifth accused in Crime No. 390/2025 (Kunnamkulam PS, Thrissur), alleging offences under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) sections including 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 110 and 190, along with Section 324 IPC. The prosecution asserts that on 23.01.2025, six identifiable individuals formed an unlawful assembly to threaten and forcibly compel the defacto complainant to accompany them; the first accused allegedly threatened with a knife and assaulted the complainant, while the others joined in the assault. The petitioner contends he is only the fifth accused with the main overt act attributable to the first accused and is ready to comply with conditions if bail is granted. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, citing involvement in another case under Section 324 IPC. The trial court’s analysis emphasizes that the main overt act lies with the first accused, and grants bail with stringent conditions, recognizing bail as a rule and jail as an exception. Relying on decisions like Chidambaram v. Enforcement, Siddharth v. UP, Joginder Kumar, Manish Sisodia, Sushila Aggarwal, and Anzar Azeez, the court imposes conditions including appearance before the IO, bond, sureties, travel limitations, and ongoing cooperation, while preserving the state’s power to investigate and recover as needed. The order emphasizes that violation may lead to cancellation of bail.
This High Court of Kerala, sitting in a Criminal Miscellaneous Case, quashed the final report and proceedings arising from Crime No.439/2014 registered at Kovalam Police Station. The petitioner, Peter Sunder Dhas, faced allegations under Sections 494 and 420 IPC, based on a complaint by the 2nd respondent, Ann Godelieve Saelens, a Belgian citizen. The 2nd respondent had allegedly entered into a marriage with the petitioner under the Special Marriage Act in 2005, afterward living apart, while the petitioner allegedly cohabited with another woman and misappropriated funds. The final report—submitted after investigation—led to cognizance by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Neyyattinkara, in CC No.2688/2014. However, service of process on the 2nd respondent in Belgium proved unsuccessful and her whereabouts remained unknown, with her statement not recorded. The Court noted long pendency and the absence of effective service, and addressed a key issue: whether cognizance could be taken on the basis of a final police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., in light of Section 198 Cr.P.C., which requires a complaint by the person aggrieved. Relying on Sali Antony, the Court held that such cognizance is not legally sustainable. It further observed the lack of materials to support Section 420, and that continuation would amount to abuse of process of law. Consequently, the court allowed the Criminal Miscellaneous Case and quashed the final report and related proceedings, while clarifying that the 2nd respondent may pursue remedies under law against the petitioner.
BAIL APPL. NO.5071 OF 2025 This is a bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), filed by Ragesh Kumar R, accused in Crime No.485/2025 of Anchalummoodu Police Station, Kollam, alleging offences under Sections 87, 64(2)(m), and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The prosecution contends that the defacto complainant, a married woman with two children, was abducted and subjected to multiple instances of rape across lodges in late 2024. The petitioner has been in custody since 15.03.2025. The High Court judge, P. V. Kunhikrishnan, begins from the well-settled principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, citing Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019) and later reaffirming that bail should be granted in deserving cases with appropriate conditions. The court also references Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India (2024) and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024) to emphasize that the duty of courts is to decide bail under the law and not deny it in straightforward cases, subject to statutory constraints. Based on the facts, the judge deems it appropriate to grant bail with stringent conditions, in light of Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala (2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260) guiding the relevant principle. The order ultimately releases the petitioner on bail with conditions, underscoring that the observations are for deciding the bail petition only, and that non-compliance could lead to cancellation of bail by the jurisdictional court.
The Kerala High Court deals with public-interest petitions challenging the transfer/portability of LPG connections among distributors without informing consumers. The petitions by consumer associations and individual consumers allege that the Oil Marketing Corporations (OMCs) port customers from one distributor to another without consent, causing hardship and service disruptions, including greater travel to obtain cylinders and delays in refills. The petitions rely on Exts. P3–P4 guidelines and government orders that promote LPG portability and closure of extension counters, arguing these measures erode consumer rights and undermine the customer’s freedom to choose a distributor. The respondents, led by the Government of India and the OMCs, contend portability is a legitimate policy decision to improve service, competition, and efficiency, under the regulatory framework of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and under various distributor agreements and guidelines (e.g., Unified Guidelines for Selection of LPG Distributors 2016, Inter-Company Portability Guidelines 2018). After analyzing rival submissions and relying on earlier judgments, including All India LPG Distributors Federation v. Union of India (2003) KLJ 451; Vembanad Gas Agencies v. Union of India (WA 1785/2019); and K. Ashraf v. BPCL (2022), the court holds there is no illegality or arbitrariness in the porting process. It dismisses the 2019 petitions while directing expedited implementation of Exts. P8 and P9 in the 2022 petition.
This writ appeal (WA No.61 of 2023) is filed by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESI Corporation) challenging a learned Single Judge's 8.11.2022 order that quashed Ext.P10, an order rejecting the petitioner's exemption from the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (ESI Act) for the 2004–2006 period, and directed fresh consideration by the Government. The writ petitioner (UAE Exchange and Financial Services Ltd.) had sought exemption for 1.9.2004–31.8.2005 and 1.9.2005–31.8.2006, contending that Ext.P8 (a final judgment) required the Government to consider exemption applications in light of pre‑amendment law. The Government relied on the 2010 amendment to Section 91A to reject the applications, arguing that the amended provision prohibits retrospective exemptions and that Section 87’s discretion cannot override statutory claims. The Division Bench notes that Ext.P8 judgment directed reconsideration under pre‑amended law and that the 2010 amendment cannot nullify previously filed applications. The Court examines the locus of ESIC to challenge Government orders and clarifies that Section 89 affords the Government a chance to express its views before deciding on exemption. Ultimately, the Court agrees that the Government’s approach in Ext.P10 cannot be sustained and, while noting the Government’s power to grant exemptions, dismisses the appeal as premature and without compelling locus to overturn the Government’s determination.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4582 OF 2025 This is a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita by Sooraj, the accused in Crime No. 477/2025 of Kodungallur Police Station, for offences under Sections 22(b) and 20(b)(ii)(A) of the NDPS Act. The prosecution alleges possession of 3.33 grams of MDMA and 35 grams of cannabis; the petitioner has been in custody since 04.03.2025. The Court considered whether bail is permissible given the quantity, described as an intermediate quantity, and whether Section 37 NDPS applies. It held that the intermediate quantity does not invoke the stringent rigour of Section 37, making bail possible subject to stringent conditions. The court reiterated the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, citing Supreme Court and Kerala authorities that a grant of bail should be considered to ensure a fair trial, even where the offence is serious. The order relies on Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, and Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala. Accordingly, the court granted bail on bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties, directed the petitioner to cooperate with the investigation, limited travel, and emphasized that non-compliance could lead to cancellation of bail. The decision also notes that bail is granted with conditions to uphold the rights to a fair trial and to prevent misuse of the liberty granted.
This Original Petition (Civil) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the order in O.S. No. 1001/2019 of the Additional Munsiff-II Court, Thiruvananthapuram, concerning a partition suit filed by the mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and her son after the death of the son. The petition argues that the subject matter involves rights arising from a marital relationship and should fall within the Family Courts Act, 1984, Section 7(1)(d) (with its Explanation) which vests jurisdiction in the Family Court for suits arising out of matrimonial circumstances; authorities such as Leby Isaac v. Leena M. Ninan, Krishna Moorthy v. Soumya Krishnan, and Janaki Amma & Ors. v. Renuka Sadanandan were cited in support. The respondent/plaintiff contends it is a straightforward partition suit resulting from the death of the son and not a matter within Section 7(1)(d); she cites Janaki Amma's case indicating that such suits can fall under Explanation (d). The High Court examined the scope of 7(1)(d) and its Explanation, relying on Mini & Ors. v. Sivaraman & anr. for the broader meaning of “circumstances arising out of a marital relationship.” Ultimately, the High Court held that the partition suit concerns property rights arising from death in the family and is not within the Family Court’s purview under 7(1)(d); the petition was dismissed and the trial directed to proceed in civil court, with expedited trial.”
This is a bail application filed by Muhammed Irfan under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking bail in Crime No.16/2025 of the Manjeri Excise Range Office, Malappuram, for alleged possession of 10.103 grams of heroin in violation of section 21(b) NDPS Act, 1985. The petitioner has been in custody since 11.03.2025. The Magistrate’s report notes the contraband as an intermediate quantity, suggesting Section 37 NDPS Act may not be attracted. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the detention period warrants release on bail, subject to stringent conditions, emphasizing the settled principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and that the absence of antecedents favors bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail but stated there were no criminal antecedents. The High Court weighed the seriousness of the offense with the gravity of the quantity and concluded that the contraband quantity being only intermediate does not by itself bar bail, especially given the period of detention. Relying on landmark pronouncements that bail is the rule and refusal is the exception, the Court granted bail with conditions, while warning that any future similar offense may lead to cancellation of bail. It cites Anzar Azeez, Chidambaram, Jalaluddin Khan and Enforcement judgments to anchor the principled approach to bail.
W.P.(C) No. 23123 of 2021 The petitioners, devotees of Muriyankara Shri Elankom Bhuvaneswari Devi Temple under the Travancore Devaswom Board, challenge the Board’s decision to appoint an Ad-hoc Temple Advisory Committee under Ext.P4 Rules in place of elections for a duly elected Temple Advisory Committee under Section 31A of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950. They seek a mandamus directing the respondents to initiate elections as prescribed by Ext.P4 and to constitute the Temple Advisory Committee in accordance with the statutory framework. The Ad-hoc Committee was impleaded as respondent 5 by order dated 13.12.2021, and the Devaswom Commissioner approved its appointment, citing ongoing developmental works and sponsor support. The petition argues that the 31A regime creates a statutory mechanism for Temple Advisory Committees and that elections must be held timely; prolonged governance by an ad-hoc body undermines the statutory scheme, transparency, and accountability. The courts discuss the scope of the 31A Rules, including the membership criteria (Clause 3), term of office (Clause 11), and control/oversight provisions (Clauses 9, 12, 18), and cite precedents clarifying that development and renovation works fall within the purview of Temple Advisory Committees. In the end, the court directs the 3rd respondent, Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, to convene the meeting of the registered mandalam and to elect new Temple Advisory Committee members within two months, and notes no order as to costs.
This is a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC filed in the Kerala High Court by accused Nos. 1 to 5 in C.P. No.72/2023 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parappanangadi. The accused are named as Shuhaib, Fazal Rahman, Nishad, Muhammed Asif, and Muhammed Rashid, facing offenses under IPC Sections 447 (trespass), 341 (wrongful restraint), 323 (hurt), 326 (hurt by dangerous weapon), 308 (attempt to commit culpable homicide) and 506 read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution alleges that on 02.04.2023 at 9 p.m., the petitioners, in furtherance of a common intention, trespassed into the defacto complainant’s property and assaulted him. The counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute has been amicably settled and prays for quashing of the proceedings in the interest of peace and ends of justice, supported by an affidavit from the respondent. The Public Prosecutor expresses reservations about quashing non-compoundable offences by invoking 482 CrPC, but notes there are no further serious crimes by the petitioners. The High Court relies on State of MP v. Laxmi Narayan and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, with Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, to articulate the governing principles for quashing: settlements may warrant quashing of non-compoundable offences private in nature, but not for heinous or public-interest crimes such as 307 IPC or Arms Act offenses. After weighing the gravity of the offences, injuries, antecedents, and the settled relationship, the Court allows the petition and quashes the final report and further proceedings.
WA 1302/2022; WA 1316/2022; WA 1394/2022; WA 1410/2022 These writ appeals arise from a common judgment dated 13 July 2022 in W.P.(C) Nos. 2392/2022 and 14971/2022, challenging regularisation claims of teachers in Prakthyaksha Raksha Daiva Sabha College of Arts and Science, an aided private college affiliated to Mahatma Gandhi University. The college ran with sanctioned posts insufficiently filled, resorting to daily‑wage guest lecturers since 2016‑17. In 2020, government sanctions provided 11 Assistant Professor posts; soon after, managerial changes occurred, resulting in terminations of some guest lecturers. Petitioners sought regularisation in the newly sanctioned posts arguing that appointments were made by the then Manager after proper selection and that, by virtue of the University Act and Regulations (UGC Regulations 2018), regular appointments must follow a proper selection process. The Single Judge’s order directed the University to constitute a Selection Committee and appoint regular faculty, though critics argued this would bypass statutory processes. The Division Bench ultimately allowed the writ appeals in part: the petitioners were not entitled to the reliefs sought, and the court set aside the broad directions to regularise through a fresh selection process, keeping alternative avenues for grievance resolution open. The decision underscores that regular appointments must adhere to statutory procedures (UGC Regulations, MG University Act) and cannot rewrite statutes through court direction.
This Kerala High Court Criminal M.C. case under Section 482 Cr.P.C concerns Abdul Rasheed, accused in C.C. No.280 of 2020 before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chavakkad, for offences under IPC sections 465, 468, 471, 420 and 201. The prosecution alleges that on 08.10.2019, at about 7:00 pm, the petitioner defrauded the de facto complainant by persuading him that lottery tickets were genuine, resulting in a payment of Rs. 9,000. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and seek to terminate the prosecution, supported by the respondent’s affidavit. The Public Prosecutor expresses reservations about quashing solely on settlement, but notes absence of other serious crimes against the petitioner. The court cites State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, and other postulates to delineate the scope of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The principles stated include that quashing is permissible for non-compoundable offences with predominantly civil character where disputes are settled, provided the offences are not heinous or under special statutes. It also emphasizes considering antecedents, conduct, and whether the matter affects society at large. Given the gravity of the offence, the amicable settlement, and lack of serious ongoing offences, the court holds that quashing would serve ends of justice and accordingly quashes the proceedings in CC 280/2020 and the Final Report in Crime No.633/2019.
This is an Article 226/227 challenge to Ext. P-4 OA (EKM) No. 1455/2019 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram. The applicant, a retired Superintendent, seeks quashing of a disciplinary order penalizing him with a bar of two increments with cumulative effect, issued in June 2019, based on an inquiry that led to several charges. The Kerala Administrative Tribunal held that the disciplinary action violated natural justice, noting that the inquiry report (Anx. A-13(a)) and the subsequent Show Cause Notice (Anx. A-15) did not adequately address the factual finding of guilt and differed from the proposed penalty, thereby impacting the fairness of the process. The Tribunal remitted the matter to the first respondent to redo the action from the stage of the show cause notice, ensuring the delinquent could defend against the finding of guilt and the proposed penalty. The High Court discusses constitutional guarantees under Article 311(2) and its proviso, explaining the post-Forty-second Amendment position: the inquiry and disciplinary authorities may be distinct, but natural justice requires that the disciplinary authority afford reasonable opportunity on the correctness of the guilt finding; the second opportunity on penalty is restricted but not negated where equity demands. The court ultimately modifies the Tribunal’s remit and directs a fresh show cause process with a time-bound timeline, preserving the retirement context and other ancillary considerations.
