IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP No. 28310 of 2002
1. A.P. MOHANAN PILLAI, S/O.
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS,
3. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM)
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH
Dated : / /
O R D E R
.TM 5
……..L…….T…….T…….T……….T…….T…….T…….J
KURIAN JOSEPH,J.@@
jAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
.SP 2
===============================@@
jAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
O.P.No.28310 of 2002 @@
jAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
===============================@@
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAjAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Dated this the 4th October, 2005@@
jAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
JUDGMENT@@
jAAAAAAAA
((HDR 0
O.P.No.28310/2002
: # :
))
.HE 2
Ext.P9 order is under challenge. As per Ext.P9 the
Government decided not to give effect to the appointment of
the petitioner as per the advice of the Kerala Public
Service Commission. According to the petitioner he actually
joined duty and has been working as driver in various
departments eversince 1991. True there was a motor accident
case in which the petitioner was punished. According to the
petitioner the alleged accident occurred in the year 1988
and it was a sheer case of accident. But the fact remains
that he was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one year with fine of
Rs.3000/-. The contention is that it is not an offence
involving moral turpitude. Learned counsel for the
petitioner further submits that even in an ofence under
Section 38 of the Negotiable Instruments Act this court has
taken a view that the same does not involve moral turpitude.
Taking note of the moral background of the petitioner,
particularly the fact that he had been working for long and
also taking note of the fact that the case does not involve
moral turpitude there is no justification in imposing the
harshest punishment. In Ground C the petitioner has stated
that Ext.P9 order is passed without affording an opportunity
for hearing. It is submitted that had the petitioner been
given such an opportunity for hearing, the petitioner could
have made an attempt to make a change of heart particularly
in view of Note II to Rule 19(b)(iii) Part II of KS & SSR.
This is denied by the learned Government Pleader. Though
the learned Government Pleader extensively referring to the
counter affidavit, vehemently contended that the Government
has considered all aspects of the case and has passed a
proper order, the contention that prejudice has been caused
for want of opportunity for personal hearing is not
substantiated. According to the petitioner since the
disciplinary authority has exonerated the petitioner that
factor should have a bearing on the ultimate decision by the
Government since admittedly the petitioner was not given an
opportunity for hearing and in view of Ext.P8 detailed reply
filed by the petitioner the contents of which are not
referred to in the impugned order, I quash Ext.P9. There
will be a direction to the lfirst respondent to consider the
matter afresh after giving an opportunity to the petitioner
for personal hearing based on Ext.P7 notice and Ext.P8
reply. Appropriate orders in accordance with law in the
matter as above shall be passed within a period of four
months from the date of production of a copy of the
judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
.JN
.SP 1
(KURIAN JOSEPH)
Judge
ahg.
.PA
((HDR 0
))
.HE 1
KURIAN JOSEPH, J.
.PL 54
JUDGMENT
4th October, 2005