IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 238 of 2006()
1. O.V. OUSEPH,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. CHIEF FOREST CONSERVATOR (PROTECTION),
3. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, MALAYATTOOR.
For Petitioner :SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :04/07/2008
O R D E R
J.B.KOSHY & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ.
-------------------------------
W.A.NO.238 OF 2006 (D)
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of July, 2008
J U D G M E N T
KOSHY,J.
Appellant/petitioner was imposed with a punishment of
barring of three increments with cumulative effect, and on
appeal and finally in revision before the Government, the
punishment was reduced to barring of only one increment
with cumulative effect. Even though appellant’s case that
punishment imposed is a major penalty and enquiry should be
conducted cannot be accepted as at the relevant time, it was
a minor penalty as per the service rules. But even for
imposing minor punishment, there should be some basis for
the action. Ext.P1 states that the Range Officer, Thundathil
Range had reported that appellant abused two girl students in
a bus and he was arrested and was taken to the
Kuruppumpady Police station on the basis of the complaint by
the employees of the bus for creating trouble, after consuming
WA.238/06 2
liquor. In the reply Ext.P3, he has denied all the allegations
in toto. According to him, no such incident happened.
Allegations were raised by the Range Officer due to personal
enmity. In the final revisional order, Ext.P4, it is stated that
the Range Officer reported that a report was received from
the Police Station that a petty case was taken against the
appellant and he was entrusted by the employees of the bus
and he was send for medical examination. Learned
Govt.Pleader produced the files. Files shows that there is no
report from the Police Station, Kuruppumpady, that he was
not arrested and no case was charged and no enquiry was
conducted against the appellant. That document is produced
as Annexure A1 in the appeal. That letter is dated 19.6.1992.
Therefore, the basis of the charges levelled against him has
gone. It is true that no formal enquiry is necessary for
imposing minor punishment. But there should be some
material for the Disciplinary authorities to impose minor
penalty. When Range Officer send a report and replied that
no such incident occurred, Range Officer has reported it due
to enmity and mala fide reasons and before taking action by
WA.238/06 3
the Disciplinary authorities, they have to enquire whether any
case was charged against the appellant, and in fact in this
case, a report from the Police Officer was received to the
effect that no case was taken against him and no enquiry is
pending. In the above circumstances, the basis of the charge
itself had gone and the punishment of barring increment with
cumulative effect is illegal and we set aside the same. Hence,
Exts.P5, P8 and P9 are set aside and appeal is allowed.
Appellant is entitled to consequential reliefs.
J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE
P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE
prp
J.B.KOSHY & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ.
——————————————————–
M.F.A.NO. OF 2006 ()
———————————————————
J U D G M E N T
———————————————————
26th May, 2008