In a recent judgment, the Kerala High Court emphasized that appellate authorities must thoroughly consider prior judicial observations when reassessing disciplinary actions and should not merely reiterate previous decisions. The Division Bench, comprising Justices Anil K. Narendran and Muralee Krishna S., dismissed writ appeals challenging an order that remanded a disciplinary case back to the Appellate Authority for reconsideration. The court underscored that an appeal serves as a continuation of the original proceedings, necessitating a comprehensive evaluation of the case on its merits rather than a limited procedural review.
The case involved Benny Mathew, who joined the Kerala Tourism Development Corporation (KTDC) as a Company Secretary in 2012 and was on probation for one year. Before his probation period concluded, Mathew was suspended in 2013 pending disciplinary proceedings. In 2015, his service was terminated with immediate effect based on allegations that he undertook private work without prior permission from KTDC, utilized KTDC's materials and human resources for private projects, and affixed a fraudulent signature of the Managing Director in a communication to the Government.
Mathew appealed the termination before the Board of Directors of KTDC under Clause 79 read with Rule 80 of the Service Rules, but his appeal was dismissed. Subsequently, he filed a writ petition challenging both the termination order and the appellate order. In a judgment dated March 19, 2020, the Single Judge set aside the appellate order and directed KTDC to reconsider the appeal on its merits. Despite this directive, KTDC again rejected the appeal on June 7, 2021. Aggrieved by this outcome, Mathew filed another writ petition, leading to the Single Judge allowing the petition and remanding the matter back to the Appellate Authority. This sequence of events culminated in the filing of two writ appeals—one by KTDC (W.A. No. 828 of 2023) and another by Mathew (W.A. No. 1129 of 2023).
Dr. K.B. Sounder Rajan, representing Mathew, argued that the prior judgment had identified bias and vindictiveness in the disciplinary proceedings, noting that the punishment of dismissal cast a stigma on Mathew. He contended that the Appellate Authority failed to properly consider these judicial observations during the reassessment of the appeal. Dr. Rajan maintained that the Appellate Authority's role extends beyond a mere procedural review and requires a substantive evaluation of the case, especially in light of the court's earlier findings.
The Kerala High Court concurred with this perspective, highlighting that an appellate authority's function is not confined to a judicial review approach but involves a thorough reconsideration of the case, taking into account all relevant judicial observations. The court emphasized that when prior judicial findings indicate potential bias or procedural lapses, the appellate authority must address these concerns substantively rather than dismissing them summarily. By failing to do so, the appellate authority neglects its duty to ensure a fair and just review process.
This judgment reinforces the principle that appellate authorities in disciplinary matters must engage in a comprehensive and impartial reassessment of cases, especially when prior judicial observations have raised concerns about the fairness of the original proceedings. The ruling serves as a reminder that justice requires more than a cursory review and demands a sincere effort to address and rectify any identified shortcomings in the disciplinary process.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.