The Kerala High Court, in a Division Bench ruling by Justices Anil K. Narendran and Muralee Krishna S., dismissed writ appeals against an order that sent a disciplinary case back to the Appellate Authority for reconsideration. The court clarified that an appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings, meaning the Appellate Authority must assess the case on its merits rather than merely conducting a procedural review.
Background of the Case
- Benny Mathew was appointed as a Company Secretary at Kerala Tourism Development Corporation (KTDC) in 2012 and placed on a one-year probation period.
- Before his probation ended, he was suspended in 2013 due to allegations of misconduct.
- By 2015, KTDC terminated his service, citing:
- Engaging in private work without permission.
- Using KTDC resources for personal projects.
- Forging the Managing Director’s signature in official communication.
Mathew challenged the termination order by filing an appeal before the Board of Directors of KTDC under Clause 79 read with Rule 80 of the Service Rules. His appeal was dismissed. He then approached the Kerala High Court, filing a writ petition against both the termination and appellate decisions.
In its judgment on March 19, 2020, a Single Judge set aside the appellate order and directed KTDC to reconsider Mathew’s appeal on its merits. However, KTDC rejected the appeal again on June 7, 2021. Aggrieved by this decision, Mathew filed another writ petition, which resulted in the case being sent back to the Appellate Authority.
This led to two writ appeals:
- W.A. No. 828 of 2023 filed by KTDC.
- W.A. No. 1129 of 2023 filed by Mathew.
Arguments in Court
Arguments by Mathew’s Counsel (Dr. K.B. Sounder Rajan)
- He argued that the judgment dated March 19, 2020, had already established that the disciplinary proceedings were biased and vindictive.
- The punishment of dismissal created a stigma on Mathew's career, and the Appellate Authority failed to address this issue during the reconsideration process.
- Since Mathew had already suffered severe hardships due to his dismissal, the Single Judge should have directly set aside the appellate order and directed compensation, rather than remanding the case again.
- Mathew’s suspension was unlawful as Rule 77(1)(g) of the KTDC Service Rules (which allowed suspension as a penalty) was removed in 2012.
- Referring to L.K. Verma v. HMT Ltd. (2006 INSC 52), he stated that without a valid rule permitting suspension, Mathew should have been entitled to full salary during the suspension period.
Arguments by KTDC’s Counsel (Adv. Ahamed)
- The Single Judge had not overturned the finding of misconduct in the domestic inquiry.
- The case was sent back to the Appellate Authority only to consider whether the punishment could be changed from dismissal to discharge from service.
- Since the Appellate Authority had already reconsidered the case and passed an order, the Single Judge should have accepted it instead of allowing another writ petition.
Court’s Observations and Judgment
1. No Procedural Violation Found
The court clarified that in its March 19, 2020 judgment, the Single Judge did not find any breach of natural justice or procedural lapses in the disciplinary proceedings. The only issue was whether termination with stigma was justified.
2. Failure of Appellate Authority to Consider Prior Judicial Observations
- The Appellate Authority did not adequately address the Single Judge’s concerns.
- It failed to assess whether Mathew’s termination could have been without stigma, ensuring a fairer outcome.
3. Misconception About the Role of the Appellate Authority
- The Appellate Authority incorrectly assumed its role was limited to judicial review, rather than conducting a full reconsideration of the case.
- The court reiterated that an appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings, requiring the Authority to re-examine all contentions on their merits.
4. No Direct Compensation Without Proper Proceedings
- While acknowledging Mathew’s long legal battle, the court held that compensation could not be granted unless the departmental proceedings were concluded lawfully.
Thus, the Division Bench dismissed both writ appeals, upholding the Single Judge’s decision to remand the case to the Appellate Authority.
Read also:"Indefinite Incarceration Not Needed": Kerala HC on Class 10 Paper Leak Case
Decided on: 06.03.2025
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:18636 | Kerala Tourism Development Corporation Limited v. Benny Mathew
Counsel for KTDC: Mr. Thoufeek Ahamed, Mr. P.A. Ahamed
Counsel for Benny Mathew: Dr. K.B. Sounder Rajan, Ms. Preeja V.P., Mr. V.P. Prasanth
