IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP.No. 10801 of 1998(J)
1. P.DURGAPRAYA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.C.RAMAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :28/10/2008
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
==================
O.P.No.10801 of 1998
==================
Dated this the 28th day of October, 2008
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner, while working as Agricultural Officer at Krishi
Bhavan, Thazhekode, Malappuram District, disciplinary
proceedings were initiated against her on certain allegations of
misconducts contained in memo of charges dated 20.5.1997,
which is produced as Ext.P1 in this original petition. The
petitioner submitted explanation, Ext.P2, disclaiming any liability
in respect of the misconduct alleged against her. In Ext.P2, she
requested for an opportunity to be heard in person. However, her
explanation was not accepted and Ext.P3 order was passed
imposing on her the punishment of barring of increment for a
period of one year without cumulative effect. She was also
directed to remit an amount of Rs.14,069/- being her share of
the loss sustained by the Government on account of the
misconducts found to have been committed by her. The
petitioner is challenging Ext.P3 order, inter alia, on the ground
that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of being
heard before passing Ext.P3 order.
o.p.10801/98 2
2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent
in which they have sought to sustain Ext.P3 order. In the same,
while admitting that the petitioner was not afforded an
opportunity of being heard, they raised a contention that this
being only a minor penalty proceedings, rules do not contemplate
an opportunity of personal hearing. Therefore, the 1st respondent
would contend that the impugned order is not violative of any
principles of natural justice on account of the petitioner having
not been heard in person.
3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
4. I note from Ext.P1 memo of charges itself that the
petitioner was required to state whether she desires to be heard
in person. The petitioner, in Ext.P2 explanation to the memo of
charges specifically stated that in case the matter was being
proceeded with further, the petitioner may be heard in person.
Even if there is no procedure of being heard in person prescribed
in the rules, after having offered an opportunity of being heard to
the petitioner, which she wanted to avail of if the matter was
being proceeded with, I do not think that the 1st respondent can
be heard to contend that such hearing need not be given to the
o.p.10801/98 3
petitioner. This is all the more so since in minor penalty
proceedings no enquiry is conducted and the proceedings are
finalised in a summary manner by the disciplinary authority
without the advantage of hearing arguments on the evidence
relied upon against the delinquent officer. In the above
circumstances, I am satisfied that Ext.P3 is violative of principles
of natural justice in so far as the petitioner has not been afforded
an opportunity of being heard as offered to her in Ext.P1.
Therefore, Ext.P3 is quashed. It would be open to the
respondents to pass fresh orders in the matter after affording an
opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.
The original petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
///True copy///
P.A. to Judge
o.p.10801/98 4
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
================
O.P.No.10801 of 1998-J
================
J U D G M E N T
28th October, 2008