1. This Review Petition is filed by the Respondent Nos.1 C 2 in the Writ Petition to review the Judgment dated 28.03.2016 in W.P.(C) No.30610/2004. The Respondent No.1 herein/Writ Petitioner filed the Writ Petition challenging Ext.P4 Order of the Disciplinary Authority which is modified by Exts.P6 and P8 Orders of the Appellate and the Revisional Authorities. Disciplinary Authority passed Ext.P4 Order ordering recovery of an amount of Rs.1,14,104/- from the salary of the Writ Petitioner at the rate of Rs.600/- per month and the balance, if any outstanding, in lump sum from the DCRG and also to bar his next three increments with cumulative effect. The Appellate Authority as per Ext.P6 Order modified Ext.P4 Order only to the extent of reducing the amount of recovery to Rs.57,698/- and ordering recovery at the rate of Rs.500/- per month from the salary. The Revisional Authority as per Ext.P8 Order further modified Ext.P4 Order only to the extent of reducing the amount of recovery to Rs.31,262.93 and ordering recovery in ten instalments. The Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority confirmed the penalty of barring three increments with cumulative effect.

2. This Court allowed the Writ Petition as per judgment dated 28.03.2016 setting aside Exts.P4, P6 C P8 Orders and granted consequential reliefs for recalculating the pensionary benefits and refund, on the ground that the disciplinary proceedings are vitiated for the reason of absolute violation of natural justice as no enquiry was conducted before imposing the punishment.

3. The Review is filed on the ground that the punishment of barring increments with cumulative effect and recovery from pay are minor punishments as per Rule 11(iii) and (iv) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960 [hereinafter referred to as ‘KCS (CC C A) Rules’], and the procedure to be followed for imposing minor penalty is provided under Rule 16 which does not mandate conducting an enquiry before imposing the said penalties.

4. I heard the learned Counsel for the Review Petitioners, Smt.Molly Jacob, and the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1, Sri.Lal K. Joseph.

5. The learned Counsel for the Review Petitioners contended that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the Review Petitioners by the decisions of this Court in M. Devaki v. State of Kerala [1994 (2) KLJ 808] and Nandakumar v. Chief Conservator of Forests [2003 (3) KLT 1155] that withholding of increment with cumulative effect was a minor punishment before the amendment to Rule 11 with effect from 27.05.2002 and hence the procedure to be followed is the procedure under Rule 16 of the said Rules. As per the said Rule, the requirement is only to issue a Statement of allegations, giving opportunity to the employee to submit Representation and to pass a reasoned order by the Disciplinary Authority considering the Representation of the employee. The Review Petitioners had issued Ext.P2 Memo of Charges and the Respondent No.1 had submitted Ext.P3 Explanation and the Disciplinary Authority has passed Ext.P4 reasoned order considering the Representation of the Respondent No.1. Thus, the procedure as per Rule 16 is complied with by the Review Petitioners for imposing the penalties on the Petitioner as per Ext.P4. Hence, this Court should not have interfered with the Order of the Disciplinary Authority which was modified by the Appellate and the Revisional Authorities. This Court was under the mistaken impression that the law requires to conduct an enquiry before imposing the penalty of withholding of increments with cumulative effect. The relevant provisions under the KCS (CC C A) Rules were not considered by this Court while passing the impugned judgment and it resulted in an error apparent on the face of the record and hence the impugned judgment is liable to be reviewed and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. The learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 contended that there is no error apparent on the face of the record as the impugned Judgment was passed by this Court setting aside the Order of the Disciplinary Authority which was modified by the Appellate and the Revisional Authorities on the ground that there is violation of the principles of natural justice. Admittedly, no enquiry whatsoever was conducted before passing the Ext.P4 Order. It is well settled by the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that withholding of increment with cumulative effect is a major penalty. The learned Counsel relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab [1991 Supp (1) SCC 504] and O.K. Bhardwaj v. Union of India and Others [(2001) 9 SCC 180] in support of his contentions.

7. I have considered the rival contentions.

8. This Court passed the impugned judgment setting aside the Order of the Disciplinary Authority which is modified by the Appellate and the Revisional Authorities on the ground that no enquiry was conducted before passing Ext.P4 Order. Rule 11 of the KCS (CC C A) Rules provides for various penalties. Originally, the penalty withholding of increments, either it be cumulative or non-cumulative, was included under Item No.(iii) of Rule 11(1). As per the Amendment dated 16.05.2002 with effect from 27.05.2002, a new Item No.(vA) was inserted to include withholding of increments with cumulative effect. By the insertion of Item (vA), the penalty of withholding of increments with cumulative effect is excluded from Item No.(iii). Rule 15 provides for the procedure for imposing major penalties. Penalties under Items Nos.(v) to (ix) of Rule 11(1) are covered under Rule 15. Rule 15 mandates that no order imposing the penalties under items (v) to (ix) of Rule 11(1) shall be passed except after an enquiry held in the manner provided therein. Rule 16 provides for the procedure for imposing minor penalties. Penalties under Items Nos.(i) to (iv) of Rule 11(1) are covered under Rule 16. As per Rule 16, for imposing penalties under Items (i) to (iv) of Rule 11(1), the procedure under Rule 16 is to be followed. The procedure under Rule 16 mandates only to issue a Statement of allegations, giving opportunity to the employee to submit representation and to pass a reasoned order by the Disciplinary Authority considering the representation, if any, of the employee. Rule 16 does not contemplate any enquiry before passing the Penalty Order by the Disciplinary Authority. Ext.P2 Memo of Charges was issued on 26.06.1996 and the Disciplinary Authority passed Ext.P4 Order on 14.08.1997. In such case, as per the law existing as on the date of the Ext.P4 Order, withholding of increments with cumulative effect coming under Item (iii) of Rule 11(1) was also a minor penalty. In such case, going by the procedure for imposing minor penalty under Rule 16, which is applicable to Item No.(iii) of Rule 11(1), no enquiry is to be conducted. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Review Petitioners, the issue is squarely covered by the decisions of this Court in M. Devaki (supra) and Nandakumar (supra). In M. Devaki (supra), the learned Single Judge of this Court considered the unamended provision under Rule 11(1) of the KCS (CC C A) Rules and found that a formal enquiry is not contemplated for imposing punishment of withholding of increment with cumulative effect. In Nandakumar (supra), the Division Bench of this Court considered the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kulwant Singh Gill (supra) cited by the Counsel for the Respondent No.1 and distinguished the same holding that the provisions considered therein, viz., Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970, are differently worded when compared to the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960. The Division Bench of this Court categorically held that the penalty of barring one increment with cumulative effect was a minor punishment before the amendment to Rule 11 with effect from 27.05.2002. In O.K. Bhardwaj (supra), the provisions considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not clear, whereas Rule 11 of the KCS (CC C A) Rules is clear on the point and is applicable to the case on hand. In M. Devaki (supra) and Nandakumar (supra), this Court considered the unamended Rule 11 of the KCS (CC C A) Rules which is applicable in this case also. In such case, no enquiry whatsoever was to be conducted before passing the Order by the Disciplinary Authority. It appears that while passing the impugned judgment, this Court was under the mistaken impression that the amended Rule 11(1) of the KCS (CC C A) Rules making the penalty of withholding of increments with cumulative effect a major one, is applicable to the case. This Court failed to understand that the disciplinary proceedings were concluded before the date of the Amendment to Rule 11(1) making the penalty of withholding of increments with cumulative effect as a major one. Since this Court applied the wrong law while passing the impugned judgment to allow the Writ Petition setting aside the Order of the Disciplinary Authority and the Orders of the Appellate and the Revisional Authorities, there is an error apparent on the face of the record, which is liable to be corrected under the Review jurisdiction.

9. Accordingly, this Review Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned judgment.

10. Since the Writ Petition is of the year 2004, post the Writ Petition for hearing tomorrow itself.