IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 27812 of 2010(B)
1. P.SUKUMARAN, FORESTER, WALAYAR FOREST
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS,
3. THE CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS,
4. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.AUGUSTINE JOSEPH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :30/11/2010
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C)No. 27812 of 2010
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 30th day of November, 2010
J U D G M E N T
While working as a Forest Guard in the Forest
Department of the Government of Kerala, the petitioner was
suspended from service pending disciplinary proceedings by
order dated 21.03.1996. A charge memo was issued on
26.06.1996 and an enquiry was conducted. The same ended
in an order imposing on him the punishment of withholding
of two annual increments and treating the suspension
period as leave. In the criminal case on the same set of
facts the petitioner was acquitted. The petitioner
challenged the punishment of withholding of increments in
an appeal on the ground that the enquiry is vitiated for non-
compliance with the procedure prescribed. By Ext.P4
order, the 2nd respondent allowed the appeal and quashed
the order of punishment on the ground of defect in the
W.P.(C)No. 27812 of 2010
-2-
enquiry, directing a denovo enquiry. That order was passed
on 15.06.2001. The petitioner’s grievance in this writ
petition is that even now the denovo enquiry has not even
begun. It is under the above circumstances the petitioner
has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:
“i) call for the records relating to Exhibit P-5;
ii) issue a writ of certiorari to quash Exhibit P-5;
iii) issue a writ of mandamus to the 3rd respondent to give all
consequential benefits with interest since the barring of
two annual increments and the suspension period based
on Exhibit.P1 has been quashed by the 2nd respondent by
Exhibit.P3″
2. The petitioner’s contention is that, if the denovo
enquiry is conducted now after 14 years, the petitioner
would not be in a position to defend himself properly in view
of the passage of time and therefore the petitioner is
seriously prejudiced.
3. I have heard the learned Government Pleader
also. The question as to whether the delay in conducting
the enquiry in a disciplinary action vitiates the disciplinary
proceedings itself has been subject matter of decisions of
both this court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in several
W.P.(C)No. 27812 of 2010
-3-
decisions. Some of them are, State of Punjab & Others
Versus Prem Sarup (CDJ 2008 SC 1677), P.V. Mahadevan
versus M.D., Tamil Nadu Housing Board (CDJ 2005 SC 592),
Punjab National Bank, Human Resources Department and
Others v. K. Prabhakaran [2010 (1) KHC 704 (DB)],
Mahadevan v. Tamil Nadu Housing Board [2005 (4) KLT
SN 22 (Case No.27) & Thomas v. K.S.E.B [2008 (3) KLT
895]. In those decisions it was held that such delay would
vitiate the proceedings as the same would cause serious
prejudice to the delinquent in defending himself.
4. The long delay in completing the disciplinary
proceedings would certainly prejudice the delinquent
insofar as by that time the documents in support of his
contentions may not be available and the witnesses also
may not be available. In this case, the disciplinary
proceedings were initiated as early as in 1996. Fourteen
years have elapsed. The petitioner is due to retire from
service on 31.3.2011. As such, I am of opinion that,
following the above decisions the disciplinary proceedings
W.P.(C)No. 27812 of 2010
-4-
are to be quashed. Accordingly the disciplinary
proceedings are quashed and the writ petition is allowed as
prayed for.
S. SIRI JAGAN
JUDGE
shg/