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
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.
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
