IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 15557 of 2008(B)
1. E. PRADEEP, S/O. KRISHNAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF VIGILANCE,
3. THE STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.SURENDRAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :17/02/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
---------------------------
W.P.(C) No.15557 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of February, 2009
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is a Scribe and a Document writer. Exhibits P1
and P2 are the Document writer’s licence and the Scribe licence
respectively. By Exhibit P3(a) dated 16/05/2008, the first
respondent suspended petitioner’s licences. A reading of Exhibit
P3(a) shows that the said order was passed, acting upon the
directions as contained in letter dated 6/05/2008 issued by the
Government, which in turn, was on the basis of Exhibit P7,
report submitted by the second respondent.
2. Exhibit P7 report shows that, on enquiry, the second
respondent found that a Power of Attorney was falsely created in
favour of one Anoop, who is the clerk of the petitioner, and
that an unidentified person was introduced by the petitioner
before the Notary Public as the executor of the Power of
Attorney. It is stated that on the strength of the Power of
Attorney, 4.8 cents of land owned by one P.M. Iqubal was
transferred to one Sirajudeen vide document no. 1213/1/04,
Registered Deed dated 14/06/2004.
W.P.(C) No.15557 /2008
2
3. Another finding in Exhibit P7 report is that a Power of
Attorney was created in favour of one Assu, where also an
unidentified person was presented before the Notary Public , who
was allegedly introduced by the petitioner. It is stated that on the
strength of the Power of Attorney, Transfer Deed No.
4157/2004 was registered on 20/12/2004. Yet another finding is
that one Kamalabai had transferred to her son 15.35 cents of
land vide document no.2396/2001 and that impersonating as
Kamalabai, some unidentified persons, registered documents
transferring a portion of the 15.35 cents in favour of the
petitioner and the balance in favour of others. The involvement
of the petitioner in creating bogus documents is also seen
recommended to the police for registration of criminal case for
impersonation and for cheating others.
4. Thus it was on the basis of Exhibit P7 that by
Exhibit P3(a) licences of the petitioner were eventually
suspended without specifying any period. Although, several
contentions have been raised by the Petitioner to impugne the
validity of Exhibit P3(a), including the incorrectness of the factual
findings in Exhibit P7 Report and that even if the allegations in
W.P.(C) No.15557 /2008
3
Exhibit P7 are taken at its face value, they do not call for any
action under Kerala Document Writers Rules, 1960, I feel that
pronouncement of those contentions may not be necessary in
this proceedings. This is for the reason that Exhibit P3(a) was not
preceded by a show cause notice nor was it passed after
affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
5. Going on by the provisions contained in Kerala
Document Writers Rules,1960, I am inclined to think that
suspensions, by itself is a punishment, in as much as, three
suspensions suffered by a licencee during a period of two years
will render himself liable for the cancellation of his licence in
terms of Rule 30 of the Rules. Therefore, the suspension could
not have been validly imposed without issuing a show cause
notice or affording an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent
licencee.
6. Learned Government Pleader contended that since
suspension was in pursuance to Exhibit P7 report and as the
report was submitted by the second respondent after questioning
the Petitioner, there is no warrant for a second opportunity,
when consequential action is taken by the first respondent. I am
W.P.(C) No.15557 /2008
4
not in a position to agree with this submission. Admittedly, the
disciplinary authority, so far as the petitioner is concerned is the
first respondent. If the first respondent has to act on a report
submitted to him by any other authority, natural justice requires
that the petitioner should be heard before any such action is
taken. In such a case alone, will the petitioner get an
opportunity to contend before the first respondent, that the
findings in the enquiry report are factually incorrect.
7. In this particular case it is the specific case of the
petitioner that he did not introduce anybody before the Notary
Public contrary to what is reported in Exhibit P7, the Vigilance
Report. In fact Petitioner himself has produced copy of the
Notarial Register as Exhibit P5 in support of his contentions. If
he had been given an opportunity, the petitioner could have
produced it before the first respondent and contended that the
finding in Exhibit P7 are incorrect. Since, such an opportunity
was not extended, in my view, Exhibit P3(a) is vitiated for
violation of principles of natural justice.
8. Therefore, for the reason that natural justice has been
violated, I set aside Exhibit P3(a) order, leaving it open to the
W.P.(C) No.15557 /2008
5
first respondent to take appropriate action against the petitioner
as is permissible in law, but however only after issuing Show
Cause Notice and giving him an opportunity to be heard.
9. It is clarified that I have not considered the other
contentions raised by both sides, and it is for the first respondent
to deal with those contentions.
10. Proceedings shall be initiated as expeditiously as
possible and at any rate within one month of receipt of a copy of
this judgment and shall be concluded without any, for the reason
that if there is any truth in the allegation, public interest requires
that necessary action should be taken.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
scm