The suspended Deputy Secretary General of Parliament, G.K.A. Chaminda Kumara Kularatne, has filed a writ petition in the Court of Appeal challenging his interdiction from service, alleging that the decision was unlawful, procedurally flawed, and in violation of natural justice.
In the application filed yesterday (18), Kularatne seeks writs of certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition, along with interim relief to stay the interdiction and the suspension of his salary pending the final determination of the case.
The petitioner states that he was interdicted on 23 January 2026 without prior notice or a fair hearing. He contends that the action was taken without proper legal authority and contrary to the provisions of the Parliamentary Staffs Act No. 09 of 1953.
Kularatne argues that under Section 7 of the Act, the power to interdict or initiate disciplinary proceedings against parliamentary staff is vested in the Secretary General of Parliament, acting in consultation with the Speaker. However, he claims that the interdiction was “purportedly” decided by the Parliamentary Staff Advisory Committee, which he asserts has no statutory mandate or disciplinary authority over a Deputy Secretary General.
The petition further alleges that the Secretary General, cited as the 1st Respondent, failed to exercise independent judgment and instead acted under the “dictation” of the Speaker of Parliament, named as the 2nd Respondent.
Kularatne also raises objections on grounds of natural justice. He states that he was denied access to the preliminary inquiry report that formed the basis of his interdiction, despite making formal requests. The petitioner maintains that this amounts to a breach of the audi alteram partem rule (hear the other side).
In addition, the petition challenges the appointment of the preliminary inquiring officer, identified as the 8th Respondent. Kularatne claims that the selection of a junior, retired officer to investigate a senior official violated Clause 7(1) of the Disciplinary Procedure and created a reasonable apprehension of bias.
The petitioner further disputes the validity of a charge sheet issued on 2 February 2026, asserting that it is void ab initio as it was based on what he describes as an unlawful inquiry conducted without jurisdiction.
Kularatne alleges that the disciplinary measures stem from what he characterises as a campaign of victimisation by the Speaker. He refers to an incident in a parliamentary dining area, claiming that the Speaker developed animosity towards him after he allegedly witnessed a “certain occurrence.”
The petition also references a complaint filed with the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) on 2 February 2026. According to the petitioner, the complaint details allegations against the Speaker and his Private Secretary, including claims relating to the removal of property from an official residence, unauthorised vehicle use, petrol allowances, and the alleged misuse of government housing. These allegations have not been adjudicated.
The petitioner is represented by Attorney-at-Law S.W. Amila Kumara. Attorneys-at-Law Rukshan Senadheera and President’s Counsel Sanjeeva Jayawardena assisted in settling the petition.