Employee Cannot Claim Loss of Appeal Right If Higher Authority Initiates Discipline: Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court has clarified that a disciplinary action initiated by a higher authority does not inherently deprive an employee of their right to appeal, provided a superior administrative body exists to hear such a challenge. In a decision emphasizing administrative hierarchy, the Court dismissed an appeal filed by an Assistant Engineer against the initiation of disciplinary proceedings by a Chief Engineer.

Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Basant Balaji presided over the matter, examining whether the exercise of disciplinary powers by a higher-ranking official than the designated 'Appointing Authority' vitiates the process. The appellant had challenged a memo of charges issued for alleged financial irregularities, arguing that the involvement of a higher authority pre-empted his statutory right to a departmental appeal.

Court Upholds Validity of Disciplinary Action by Higher Authority

The Court observed that the grievance regarding the loss of an appellate forum was unfounded. Since the Board exists as a superior body to the Chief Engineer, the appellant retains the right to approach the higher administrative tier if aggrieved by any final order. The Court further noted that the allegations involved serious charges of financial loss and collusion, which require a factual inquiry rather than judicial interference at the preliminary stage.

The Court has the following directions:

"The Writ Appeal fails, and it is dismissed."

Identifying the legal principle behind the decision, the Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Thus, it is established that if the 3rd respondent passes any order against the appellant, he can file an appeal to an immediate superior authority, which is the Board. Therefore, the contention that since the 3rd respondent acted as the appellate Authority, he has lost the right of appeal, is devoid of merits."

Scope of Judicial Review under Article 226

The Bench emphasized that it cannot delve into disputed questions of fact regarding the removal of materials or the nature of assessments during a writ proceeding. It held that the appellant has an ample opportunity to defend himself during the departmental inquiry.

Background:

The appellant, an Assistant Engineer with the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB), was served with a memo of charges (Ext.P3) alleging that he caused financial loss to the Board by illegally reducing penalties and allowing the unauthorized removal of materials by a contractor. These actions were linked to his role as an Assessing Authority under Section 126(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

The appellant contended that under the relevant service regulations, the Deputy Chief Engineer (seventh respondent) was his appointing and disciplinary authority. He argued that the Chief Engineer (third respondent) was the appellate authority, and by directly issuing the charges, the third respondent had stripped him of his right to appeal. He relied on the precedent in Surjit Ghosh v. Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank and others ( "(1995) 2 SCC 474": 1995 CaseBase(SC) 148) to argue that an employee cannot be deprived of an appeal right by a higher authority's pre-emptive action.

However, the High Court referred to the Regulations of 1969 and Part-VI of the Regulations, noting that even if the Chief Engineer acts as the disciplinary authority, a further appeal lies with the Board. Finding no illegality in the issuance of the charge memo, the Court upheld the Single Judge's decision to dismiss the writ petition.

Case Details:
Case No.: WA NO. 24 OF 2018
NeutralCitation: 2026:KER:45678
Case Title: N.V. SUNIL v. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. AND OTHERS
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): SMT.SHAMEENA SALAHUDHEEN, SHRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SMT.S.SIMY
For the Respondent(s): SHRI.M.K.THANKAPPAN, SC, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED

Source: 2026 CaseBase(KER) 357