[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Shiju L vs State Of Kerala on 20 February, 2026
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
2026:KER:14704
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 38642 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SHIJU L
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O J. LUKOSE,
PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT VIDHYA COTTAGE,
MANGAD, KOLLAM, PRESENTLY WORKING AS SELECTION GRADE
ASSISTANT IN THE OFFICE OF THE VIGILANCE TRIBUNAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 691015
BY ADV.
SRI.PRAKASH M.P.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT
VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
4 THE REGISTRAR (SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY)
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
5 THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE
PALACE ROAD, CHEMBUKAVU, THRISSUR, PIN - 680020
2026:KER:14704
W.P.(C) No.38642/2024
:2:
6 THE VIGILANCE TRIBUNAL
T.C 28/508, NEAR SASTHA TEMPLE,
THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
BY ADVS.
SRI.S. VISHNU (ARIKKATTIL), STANDING COUNSEL
SMT.V.A. HARITHA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 07.01.2026, THE COURT ON 20.02.2026 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:14704
W.P.(C) No.38642/2024
:3:
N. NAGARESH, J.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No.38642 of 2024
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 20th day of February, 2026
JUDGMENT
~~~~~~~~~
The petitioner, who is working as Selection
Grade Assistant in the Vigilance Tribunal,
Thiruvananthapuram, has filed this writ petition seeking to
quash Exts.P22 and P25 and to declare that the disciplinary
proceedings initiated against the petitioner is illegal.
2. The petitioner states that he was appointed
as an Assistant on 08.12.2007 in the office of the Enquiry
Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur, pursuant to an
advice given by the Kerala Public Service Commission. As
2026:KER:14704
per Ext.P1 Special Rules for the post of Assistant, the
appointing authority is the Enquiry Commissioner and Special
Judge, who will be the disciplinary authority also.
3. The petitioner was transferred and posted in
the Vigilance Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram under the 6th
respondent. Thereafter, the Enquiry Commissioner and
Special Judge, Thrissur issued Ext.P4 memo dated
03.10.2018 seeking explanation. The petitioner submitted
Ext.P5 explanation.
4. The 5th respondent forwarded the
explanation to the 4th respondent-Registrar of the Kerala High
Court as per Ext.P7. It was alleged that the petitioner had
made snide remarks and unwarranted statements about the
inspection team of the High Court. The 4th respondent-
Registrar required the 2nd respondent-Additional Chief
Secretary to take appropriate action against the petitioner for
propagating falsehood about the institution.
2026:KER:14704
5. The Government considered the explanation
submitted by the petitioner and was of the opinion that the
officer has violated the office decorum and that his
explanation is unbecoming of a government servant.
Therefore, the Government decided to take disciplinary action
for imposing major penalty on the petitioner as per the Kerala
Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,
1960. A memo of charges dated 23.06.2020 was served on
the petitioner. The petitioner gave his written statement of
defence. After giving an opportunity of personal hearing, the
respondents decided to proceed against the petitioner. The
Manager of the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special
Judge, Thiruvananthapuram was appointed as inquiring
authority.
6. After conducting the enquiry, the Enquiry
Officer concluded that all the charges levelled against the
petitioner are proved. The Government accepted the findings
2026:KER:14704
of the inquiring authority and took a tentative decision to
withhold three annual increments of the petitioner with
cumulative effect. The petitioner was served with a copy of
the enquiry report and was given opportunity to represent
against the proposal. After hearing the petitioner and after
considering all facts, the Government issued Ext.P22 order
dated 08.07.2022 imposing on the petitioner the punishment
of withholding three annual increments with cumulative effect.
7. The petitioner filed Ext.P23 Review Petition
as per Ext.P24. The petitioner submitted that during his
entire period of service, he had not acted against the
reputation of the Department or committed any deed
unbecoming of a government servant. The petitioner stated
that he had no intention to demean or belittle the status or
jurisdiction of any authorities including the High Court. The
petitioner requested to review the punishment imposed.
2026:KER:14704
8. The 1st respondent considered the Review
Petition filed by the petitioner. The 1st respondent held that
the petitioner has acted in a manner unbecoming of a
government servant. The remarks made by the petitioner
regarding inspections cannot be justified under any
circumstances. If such misconduct is tolerated, it will be
against the interest of the administration. The 1st respondent
rejected the Review Petition as per Ext.P25 order dated
10.03.2023.
9. The counsel for the petitioner argued that
Ext.P11 charge memo is vague. The petitioner relied on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in A.L. Kalra v. The
Project and Equipment Corporation of India Limited
[(1984) 3 SCC 316] and the judgment in Fr. Augustine
Mathew v. Devamatha College [2002 (3) KLT 509] and
argued that a general expectation of a certain decent
behaviour in respect of employees keeping in view the work
2026:KER:14704
culture may be a moral or ethical expectation. Failure to
keep to such high standard of moral, ethical or decorous
behaviour by itself cannot constitute misconduct unless the
specific conduct falls in any of the enumerated misconduct
under the rules. The charges levelled against the petitioner is
therefore unsustainable.
10. The counsel for the petitioner pointed out
that there is no allegation against the petitioner in respect of
any violation of the rules. The counsel relied on the judgment
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India and others v. J.
Ahmed [(1979) 2 SCC 286] and urged that to impose
penalty on a government servant, there should be a clear
case of misconduct which would render the government
servant liable for punishment. The underlying objective of
disciplinary proceedings would be satisfied only if the defence
of the person is noticed objectively. Subjective satisfaction
has no place, contended the counsel for the petitioner relying
2026:KER:14704
on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in
Parameswaran Nair B. v. State of Kerala and others [2006
(1) KLT 167].
11. On behalf of the petitioner, it was argued
that a discretion is given to the authority who hears the
delinquent, under Rule 15 of the KCS (CCA) Rules, 1960.
The authority decided to impose a minor penalty. Imposing
punishment other than the one suggested by the hearing
authority is violative of Rule 15, urged the counsel for the
petitioner relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in Kerala Agricultural University v. T.P. Murali [2024 (5)
KLT SN 23].
12. If the disciplinary proceedings were initiated
by adopting a procedure for initiating minor penalty, then it
would be illegal to shift the disciplinary proceedings to impose
a major penalty, argued the counsel for the petitioner relying
on the judgment in Raveendranathan v. District Collector,
2026:KER:14704
Palghat [1984 KLT 564].
13. The petitioner further pointed out that even
before issue of memo of charges, the disciplinary authority
did not approve the suggestion to impose a punishment of
barring of one increment without cumulative effect.
Therefore, the memo of charges as well as show-cause
notice became an empty formality violating the principles of
natural justice. Relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Hari B.S., Commandant v. Union of India [2023
(4) KLT SN 39], the learned counsel argued that the
punishment imposed on the petitioner is excessive.
14. Respondents 3 and 4 resisted the writ
petition. Respondents 3 and 4 submitted that the issue arose
from the preparation of notes of inspection done by the
inspection team of the High Court of Kerala from 09.05.2017
to 16.05.2017. From the very beginning of the inspection, the
attitude of the petitioner was hostile. There was lack of
2026:KER:14704
discipline on the part of the petitioner and he declared that
he is not under the administrative control of the High Court.
In Ext.P5 explanation, the petitioner made snide remarks and
unwarranted statements about the inspection team of the
High Court. The Registrar (District Judiciary) had also
reported that the petitioner is propagating falsehood about
the institution.
15. The 2nd respondent also filed a counter
affidavit. The 2nd respondent submitted that going through
Ext.P5, it is seen that the petitioner has violated the office
decorum and that his explanation is quite unbecoming of a
government servant. Therefore, the petitioner was
proceeded against. All opportunities were given to the
petitioner in the proceedings by the inquiring authority, to
defend the charges. The inquiring authority found the
charges as proved. Consequently, the punishment was
imposed. The Review Petition submitted by the petitioner
2026:KER:14704
was also considered and it was decided not to interfere with
the punishment imposed. The 2nd respondent submitted that
a writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner is a
government servant amenable to the Administrative Tribunals
Act, 1985.
16. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the learned Government Pleader representing
respondents 1, 2, 5 and 6 and the learned Standing Counsel
representing respondents 3 and 4.
17. The petitioner was proceeded against for
making snide remarks about the authorities. The attitude of
the petitioner is evident from the explanation given by the
petitioner in Ext.P5, which is as follows:
i. As I am now working under Vigilance
Tribunal, Trivandrum, the Enquiry Commissioner
and Special Judge, Thrissur has no legal Authority
to issue a memo as I am not legally bound to offer
an explanation regarding the matter since there
was sufficient time with the Enquiry Commissioner
and Special Judge, Thrissur, while I was working
there.
2026:KER:14704
ii. I have been gifted with such a wonderful
memo.
iii. It is quite impossible to me being a
human in discharging the duties of two sections
simultaneously as I am not a God or Superhuman.
iv. I am not hesitant to say the fact that the
Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge,
Thrissur and Manager has failed to find out the
discrepancies as reported in the Enquiry Report
No.1/2014 in time.
v. It was the Manger who entertained the
Inspection Team with food supply and service of
Office Attendants.
18. The afore statements of the petitioner prima
facie show disrespect of the petitioner to the superior officers
including the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge. The
statement "It was the Manager who entertained the
inspection team with food supply and service of Office
attendants" would indeed amount to making insinuation and
innuendos.
19. The petitioner would urge that the charges
against the petitioner are vague and therefore the enquiry
2026:KER:14704
proceedings are illegal. Going through the charges levelled
against the petitioner, I am unable to accept the said
contention. The judgments in A.L. Kalra (supra) and Fr.
Augustine Mathew (supra) cannot be relied on in order to
state that the charges levelled against the petitioner are
vague. The petitioner argues that there is no allegation of
violation of any of the rules under the Government Servants'
Conduct Rules. Ext.P11 memo of charge clearly states that
the language used in the explanation given by the petitioner
amounts to serious misconduct and dereliction of duty. The
statement of allegation has specifically stated that the
petitioner has failed to keep the dignity and decorum as a
government servant and thereby failed to maintain absolute
integrity and devotion to duty. The argument of the petitioner
that there is no allegation of violation of any of the rules under
the Government Servants' Conduct Rules is therefore
unsustainable.
2026:KER:14704
20. The further argument of the petitioner is that
the disciplinary authority decided to impose a minor penalty
and therefore changing the disciplinary proceedings for
imposition of major penalty after commencement of minor
penalty proceedings is illegal. I find that after initiating the
proceedings, it was decided to impose major penalty on the
petitioner. The disciplinary proceedings thereafter were
conducted in compliance of the rules relating to award of
major penalty. The petitioner was given effective opportunity
to defend the charges as well as award of penalty.
Therefore, I do not find any illegality in that regard and the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in T.P. Murali (supra)
will not be of any assistance to the petitioner.
21. The indications of awarding proposed
penalty on the petitioner cannot be treated as a biased
approach by the authorities. For that reason, it cannot be
said that the memo of charge and show-cause notice have
2026:KER:14704
become empty formality. The punishment of withholding of
increments with cumulative effect was awarded to the
petitioner after taking note of the enquiry report and after
giving all opportunities to the petitioner to defend the charges.
The punishment cannot be interfered with on the grounds
advanced by the petitioner.
For all the above reasons, I find that the writ
petition is without any merit. The writ petition is hence
dismissed.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE
aks/18.02.2026
2026:KER:14704
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 38642 OF 2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE EXTRACT OF THE SPECIAL RULES
PUBLISHED AS PER G.O (P) NO.
45/2012/VIG DATED 25.08.2012
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
21.05.2015 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED
14.11.2017 OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 03.10.2018
ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 5TH
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED
20.10.2018 OF THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P6 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.11.2018
IN O.P (CRL) NO. 534/2018 OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT
Exhibit P7 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17.11.2018 OF
THE 5TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P8 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.09.2019
IN O.P (CRL) NO. 580/2017 OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT
Exhibit P9 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.12.2019 OF
THE 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P10 COPY OF THE NOTE 18 OF THE NOTE FILE
OBTAINED UNDER RTI ACT
Exhibit P11 COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DATED
23.06.2020 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P12 COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF DEFENSE DATED
08.09.2020
Exhibit P13 COPY OF G.O (MS) NO. 12/2020/VIG DATED
11.09.2020 FINALISING THE PROCEEDINGS
Exhibit P14 COPY OF NOTE 74 OF THE NOTE FILE
OBTAINED UNDER RTI ACT
Exhibit P15 COPY OF THE NOTES 78 TO 81 OF THE NOTE
FILE OBTAINED UNDER RTI ACT
Exhibit P16 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15.12.2020 OF
2026:KER:14704
THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
21.01.2021 WITH A COPY OF THE RELEVANT
PORTION OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT
Exhibit P18 COPY OF THE NOTES 109-113 OF THE NOTE
FILE OBTAINED UNDER RTI ACT.
Exhibit P19 COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED
08.04.2021
Exhibit P20 COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED
17.06.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
TO EXT. P19 NOTICE
Exhibit P21 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10.03.2022
WITH MINUTES OBTAINED UNDER RTI ACT
Exhibit P22 COPY OF G.O (RT) NO. 81/2022/VIG DATED
08.07.2022
Exhibit P23 COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION DATED
05.09.2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P24 COPY OF THE SUBMISSION DATED
30.12.2022 MADE BY THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P25 COPY OF THE G.O(RT) NO. 37/2023/VIG
DATED 10.03.2023 DISMISSING THE REVIEW
PETITION
Exhibit P26 COPY OF THE DISABILITY CERTIFICATED
DATED 05.04.2023
Exhibit P27 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.10.2019 OF
THE 4TH RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE
STATE GOVERNMENT
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
Exhibit R4 (a) TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO.
11/2021/VIG DATED 22.09.2021.
