IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP.No. 27413 of 2002(L)
1. O.V.OUSEPH, FOREST GUARD,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,
3. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,
4. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,
5. DEPUTY FOREST CONSERVATOR,
6. RANGE OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :11/11/2009
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J
...............................................
O.P. No. 27413 of 2002
.................................................
Dated this the 11th day of November, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner was a forest guard at the time of filing this
original petition. On allegation that the petitioner along with
others failed to take any steps to arrest an accused involved in a
forest offence and did not prevent unauthorised felling of trees,
disciplinary proceedings were initiated, in which Ext.P1 order
was passed directing recovery of an amount of Rs.286/- from his
salary. That amount was also recovered from the petitioner.
Thereafter all of a sudden, the petitioner was served with Ext.P2
order dated 1.6.2002, whereby for the same misconducts an
amount of Rs.500/- was directed to be recovered from the
petitioner’s salary in two equal installments. This direction was
issued on the reasoning that actually the loss caused to the
Government was Rs.2,000/- and since one of the delinquents died
and another retired from service, proportionate amounts had to
be recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner contends that
Ext.P2 order has been issued without issuing him any notice or
affording him an opportunity of being heard. Although, a
O.P. No. 27413 of 2002 -2-
counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, it is not
disputed before me that before issuing Ext.P2, the petitioner has
not been afforded and opportunity of being heard. Petitioner’s
appeal against Ext.P2 order was rejected by Ext.P3. Petitioner is
challenging Exts.P2 and P3 orders. Petitioner is also challenging
Exts.P5, P6 and P7 further notices in respect of similar other
misconducts. As far as Exts.P2 and P3 are concerned, I am of
opinion that, in so far as prior to issue of Ext.P3 petitioner has
not been given a notice or hearing before issuing Ext.P2, those
cannot be sustained. Accordingly, they are quashed. In respect
of Exts.P5, P6 and P7 they are only show cause notices and
petitioner’s remedy lies in filing explanations and pursuing his
remedies in accordance with law.
The original petition is disposed of as above.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
rhs