IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP.No. 12624 of 1997(C)
1. J.VIJAYAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.C.ELDHO
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :27/06/2008
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J
==================
O.P .No.12624 of 1997
==================
Dated this the 27th day of June, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
In this Original Petition the petitioner challenges
Ext.P7 and P10 orders. By Ext.P7 the punishment of
barring three increments with cumulative effect was
imposed on the petitioner. It was also ordered that the
period during which he was placed under suspension will be
treated as eligible leave. On appeal filed by the petitioner,
the appellate authority issued Ext.P10 order, confirming the
order passed by the disciplinary authority. The said orders
are under challenge in this original petition.
2. While the petitioner was working as Village
Extension Officer, he was placed under suspension with
effect from 31.3.1993. He was later reinstated in service on
16.1.1994,without prejudice to the continuance of the
disciplinary action against him. Thereafter, Ext.P3 memo of
charges dated 20.1.1994 was issued calling upon the
O.P .No.12624 of 1997 2
petitioner to show cause why disciplinary proceedings
should not be taken against him under the Kerala Civil
Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960,
hereinafter referred to as the “Rules” for short. The
petitioner was called upon to submit his reply within 15
days from the date of receipt of Ext.P3. He was also
informed that he can peruse the relevant records mentioned
in the statement of allegations and take extracts therefrom.
Ext.P3 was served on the petitioner on 25.1.1994. The
petitioner who was desirous of perusing the records
referred to in the statement of allegations submitted Ext.P5
letter dated 18.2.1994 to the District Collector, the
disciplinary authority. Ext.P5(a) discloses that the original
of Ext.P5 was received in the office of the District Collector
on 21/2/1994. It is the case of the petitioner that no reply
was received to Ext.P5 and thereupon Ext.P6 letter dated
21.7.1994 was sent by him requesting that copies of the
documents sought for, may be issued. There was no reply
O.P .No.12624 of 1997 3
to Ext.P6 also. There after by Ext.P7 order passed on
25.1.1995, the District Collector imposed on the petitioner,
the punishment of barring three increments with cumulative
effect. The District Collector also directed that the period
of suspension will be treated as eligible leave. The
petitioner challenged Ext.P7 by filing Ext.P8 appeal. By
Ext.P10 order passed on 19.12.1996, the Commissioner for
Rural Development rejected the appeal.
3. I have heard Sri.K.C.Eldho, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K. Sandesh Raja, the
learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that
Ext.P7 order was passed without affording him an
opportunity to peruse the documents referred to Ext.P4 and
to take extracts therefrom. The learned counsel submitted
that the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate
authority did not advert to the request made by the
petitioner in Ext.P5 and Ext.P6 letters and that the
O.P .No.12624 of 1997 4
petitioner was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to
meet the allegations levelled against before the order
imposing punishment was passed. The learned Government
Pleader on the other hand contended that as the petitioner
did not file a written statement of defence denying the
charges levelled against him, the disciplinary authority was
justified in passing the order imposing punishment.
4. I have considered the rival submissions made at the
Bar. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had immediately
on receipt of Ext.P3 memo of charges, submitted Ext.P5
letter to the disciplinary authority requesting that he may
be allowed to peruse the records described therein and to
take extracts therefrom. That request was not considered
and therefore Ext.P6 letter was also sent within a few
months thereafter. The respondents have no case before
me (no counter affidavit has been filed in the original
petition) that the petitioner’s request in Ext.P5 and Ext.P6
was granted. It is evident that the petitioner was not
O.P .No.12624 of 1997 5
afforded an opportunity to peruse the records and to take
extracts therefrom. The respondents also have no case that
the disciplinary authority did not receive the originals of
Ext.P5 and P6 letters. I am therefore persuaded to hold
that the disciplinary authority did not afford the petitioner,
a reasonable opportunity to meet the allegations levelled
against him. The order passed by the disciplinary authority
is therefore one in violation of the principles of natural
justice. The appellate authority also did not consider the
said aspect, though the petitioner had in Ext.P8 appeal
highlighted the issue.
5. I therefore, quash Ext.P7 and Ext.P10 orders and
direct the disciplinary authority, the 2nd respondent in the
original petition to proceed afresh from the stage of Ext.P3
memo of charges. The 2nd respondent shall within one
month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment,
grant the request made by the petitioner in Exts.P5 and P6
and inform the petitioner in writing of the date on which he
O.P .No.12624 of 1997 6
can peruse the records and take extracts therefrom. The
petitioner shall within 15 days thereafter submit his written
statement of defence. The disciplinary authority shall
thereafter finalise the disciplinary proceedings
expeditiously. The petitioner shall also co-operate with the
enquiry and shall not adopt delaying tactics.
The Original petition is allowed as above. No costs.
P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE
rhs