Kerala High Court
Sony A.S vs State Of Kerala on 28 July, 2025
WA No.1203 of 2025 1
2025:KER:55112
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 6TH SRAVANA, 1947
WA NO. 1203 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 28.03.2025 IN
WP(C) NO.40521 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT
SONY A.S.
AGED 43 YEARS
DAUGHTER OF K. SASIDHARAN, MUNSIFF, MUNSIFF
COURT, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, KERALA,
RESIDING AT ASHA BHAVAN, KURUMTHALY, PALLODE,
PACHA P O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN -
695562
BY ADVS.
SMT.REKHA VASUDEVAN
SMT.SOYA D.C
SHRI.MAHESH C.R.
SMT.ELIZABETH V.JOSEPH
SMT.ASWATHY ANILKUMAR
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN THE WRIT PETITION.
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695014
2 HIGH COURT OF KERALA
WA No.1203 of 2025 2
2025:KER:55112
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH
COURT COMPLEX, HIGH COURT P O, ERNAKULAM,
KERALA, PIN - 682031
3 THE REGISTRAR
DISTRICT/ SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, HIGH COURT P O,
ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 682031
4 THE JOINT REGISTRAR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, HIGH
COURT P O, ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADV SHRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN
ADV. SRI. HARISH SR.GP
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA No.1203 of 2025 3
2025:KER:55112
JUDGMENT
Syam Kumar V.M, J This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 28.03.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.40521 of 2024. Appellant was the petitioner in the Writ Petition. The respondents were the respondents therein.
2. Appellant, while posted as Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Kollam during the period 01.08.2016 to 31.12.2016, had within the said period of around 15 months disposed of 1910 cases invoking Section 258 of Cr.P.C. Alleging that this was done by her in violation of O.M. No.D3-61918/2013 dated 23.11.2015, enquiry proceedings were initiated against the appellant. The said proceedings led to the issuance of Ext. P1 memo of charges, Ext.P4 enquiry report, Ext. P7 show cause notice and Ext. P9 penalty order. Finally, a major penalty of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect for two years had been imposed on her. Appeal and review filed by the appellant were of no avail and Ext.P14 order was issued dismissing the review. Appellant hence filed the W.P(C) seeking the following reliefs:
i. Quash Exts.P1 memo of charges, P4 Enquiry Report, Ext.P7 Show Cause Notice, Ext.P9 penalty order and Ext.P14 order rejecting the Review WA No.1203 of 2025 4 2025:KER:55112 Petition, by the issuance of the writ of certiorari, or other appropriate writ, order or direction. ii. Declare that the petitioner is not liable to be proceeded against for having rendered judicial orders in a bonafide manner and that the proceedings initiated against her are liable to be dropped, fully exonerating her.
Iii. Direct the respondents to restore all her service benefits including seniority and promotion on par with her immediate junior and to refix her pay and to disburse her the arrears of pay within a short time frame, by the issuance of the writ of mandamus, or other appropriate writ, order or direction.
iv. Grant such other reliefs as may be prayed for and as the court may deem fit to grant and v. Grant the cost of the writ petition."
3. Counter affidavits were filed by the respondents in the Writ Petition and the learned Single Judge after due hearing, disposed of W.P.(C), declining the prayers sought for; however, granting liberty to the appellant to approach this Court seeking reduction of punishment. To the extent that the prayers sought by her in the Writ Petition had not been granted by the learned Single Judge, this Appeal has been filed.WA No.1203 of 2025 5
2025:KER:55112
4. Heard Smt.Rekha Vasudevan, Advocate for the appellant and Sri. Sunilkumar Kuriakose, the learned Government Pleader. Sri.S.Radhakrishnan, Advocate and Sri.Harikumar G, Advocate, were also heard in the matter.
5. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the learned Single Judge erred in declining to grant the prayers sought in the Writ Petition. It was contended that the memos issued and orders passed had been issued and rendered in violation of the provisions of Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1963 and the said statutes mandate that no Judge acting judicially could be proceeded against, for any act done in discharge of the judicial duty.
She submits that merely because an order passed by the Judicial Officer is wrong or action taken could have been different, no disciplinary proceedings could be initiated against the concerned Judicial Officer. It is further contended that the 1st respondent had failed to take note of the dictum laid down in Suo Motu v. State of Kerala (2023 KHC Online 821) and had mechanically disposed of the matter. Non-application of mind is alleged, and it is submitted that the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner were unwarranted and in violation of the relevant provisions of the statutes. Reliance was also placed by the WA No.1203 of 2025 6 2025:KER:55112 learned counsel on the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in Abhay Jain v. High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan & Anr. (2022 KHC 6307), Union of India and others v. K.K. Dhawan (1993 KHC 888) and Joshi P.C v. State of U.P. (2001 KHC 852). Relying on the dictum laid in Sujanapal P. v. State of Kerala and Others [2016 (1) KHC 518)] and Krishnakumar S. v. State of Kerala (2022 KHC Online 864), it is contended that in the absence of any malice or bias and when willful and deliberate non adherence to the guidelines issued by the High Court is lacking, no disciplinary proceedings could be initiated against the Judicial Officer. Reliance is also placed on the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anowar Hussain v. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee & Ors. (1965 KHC
711) wherein it had been held that Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850 protects a Judicial Officer when he is acting in his judicial capacity. It is contended that the impugned judgment had been rendered by the learned Single Judge overlooking the said dictum. The learned Counsel submits that the general administrative control of the High Court over Judicial Officers does not permit interference in judicial decisions unless a malafide intention is established. The learned Single Judge, though, had found WA No.1203 of 2025 7 2025:KER:55112 that there was no malicious intention on the part of the appellant had chosen to restrict the consideration to the extent of quantum of punishment. The learned Counsel for the appellant thus sought to set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and to allow the prayers as sought for in the Writ Petition.
6. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned Counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4 submitted that the charges as laid against the appellant had been proved and a punishment as envisaged in law had been validly imposed. It is contended by the Counsel in line with the counter affidavits filed that disciplinary action initiated against the appellant was on the basis of the findings of the enquiry officer appointed by the High Court and also on the basis of the recommendation of the High Court. The action of having issued Ext.P14, by awarding a major penalty or withholding of 2 increments with cumulative effect for 2 years is in accordance with and as envisaged under Rule 11(1)(vA) of the Kerala Civil Services (C.C.&A) Rules, 1960. The same was arrived at after complying with all procedures and formalities. It is submitted that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellant for the charges of grave misconduct, WA No.1203 of 2025 8 2025:KER:55112 dereliction of duty and for acts amounting to arbitrary exercise of judicial discretion and power. The allegations levelled against the appellant, it is submitted, are very serious, and it had already been brought to the notice of the appellant that her performance required improvement. It is submitted that after assessing the performance of the appellant, the Judge in charge of the Kollam Judicial District had reported that the appellant needed improvement and direction was issued to her to dispose of more contested cases. The District Judge, Kollam had reported that the total count of disposal of the appellant during the period of 5 months was 2499 and that she had not disposed during the period even a single case after trial. In the departmental enquiry conducted into the charges against the appellant, the enquiry officer had reported that the appellant had disposed of a total number of 1903 cases by invoking Section 258 of Cr.P.C. during the period from 01.08.2016 to 31.12.2016, without recording any reason for stopping the proceedings or on flimsy grounds and without taking any effort to understand the law on the subject and the real scope of the provision. The same had been done without taking any steps under Sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C.The learned counsel contends that in Ext. P8 reply WA No.1203 of 2025 9 2025:KER:55112 dated 08.03.2021 furnished by the appellant she has admitted her mistakes and prayed to grant her pardon. She had also undertaken that she would not repeat any of her past mistakes and she may be permitted to tender an unconditional apology. The enquiry officer had concluded the report with the finding that the acts of the appellant amounted to arbitrary exercise of judicial discretion and power, grave misconduct and dereliction of duty, which was unbecoming of a judicial officer. It is submitted that earlier it had been found that the appellant is unfit to continue as a Judicial Officer and had resolved to call for her explanation as to why she should not be discharged from service. A notice had also been issued to her directing her to show cause as to why she should not be discharged from service. The appellant had submitted her explanation and it was after accepting her unconditional apology and the undertaking to be more cautious and dedicated in the future that the Administrative Committee of the High Court had resolved to impose a major penalty of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect for a period of two years. Reliance is placed on Section 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 The learned Counsel thus submitted that the impugned Judgment does not call for any WA No.1203 of 2025 10 2025:KER:55112 interference and that the Writ Appeal is only to be dismissed.
7. We have heard both sides in detail and have considered the contentions put forth. The precedents relied on by both sides have also been studied. We note that it was on the basis of the reports of the District Judge, Kollam and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kollam, and the Registrar (Vigilance) that disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the appellant and the charge memo had been issued to her. It had been clearly found in the proceedings that followed that the actions of the appellant amounted to arbitrary exercise of judicial discretion and that she had passed identical orders in all the 1,926 cases without proper application of mind. It had been validly concluded that the appellant had exceeded her powers by invoking Section 258 of Cr.PC and there was deliberate violation of the High Court OM. Thus, the arbitrary exercise of judicial discretion and power, grave misconduct and dereliction of duty, unbecoming of a judicial officer, had been clearly made out. The miscarriage of justice that had occasioned due to the said dereliction on the part of the appellant had also been substantiated. The miscarriage of justice resulting in large scale disposal of criminal cases invoking WA No.1203 of 2025 11 2025:KER:55112 Section 258 of Cr.P.C. had led to the initiation of suo motu revision by the Registry of this Court as envisaged in Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. We note that no specific challenge regarding violation of any procedural mandates have been raised in the Writ Petition nor in the Writ Appeal. The principal contentions put forth by the appellant are based on the Kerala Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1963 and the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. The factual correctness of the events that led to Ext.P14 order are undisputed, rather admitted in the apology tendered by the appellant. The course followed and procedure adopted to arrive at the penalty imposed has not been challenged for any major discrepancy or violation. Except for a veiled reference to proportionality, there is no valid and tenable challenge as against the quantum of punishment imposed. In the light of the above, the purported reliance placed by the appellant on the precepts in the Kerala Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1963 and the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 is of no avail. Further, the appellant has in Ext.P8 reply dated 08.03.2021 already admitted her mistakes and blamed the imbroglio on her inexperience. She had also undertaken that she would not repeat any of her past mistakes and had tendered her unconditional apology. She WA No.1203 of 2025 12 2025:KER:55112 had further prayed that the ineptitude that had occurred in the beginning period of her career may be condoned and she be exonerated. We note that in the said facts and circumstances, the learned Single Judge had rightly refrained from interfering with the orders passed and had taken a rather lenient view, permitting the appellant to pursue a representation.
We do not find any illegality in the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge warranting interference. The Writ Appeal accordingly fails and it is dismissed. No cost.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI JUDGE Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M. JUDGE smm