IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 35597 of 2004(K)
1. P. NARAYANAN, S/O. JANAKI AMMA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. CHIEF FOREST CONSERVATOR
3. CHIEF FOREST CONSERVATOR
For Petitioner :SRI.KKM.SHERIF
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :23/12/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 35597 OF 2004 (K)
=====================
Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner was a Forest Guard. He and 28 others were
issued Ext.P1 memo of charges alleging that while working at the
Kappathode Check Post, which is of Pariyaram Range, they
allowed illegal passage of unauthorised timber collected from the
forest, causing loss of Rs.14,39,469/- to the Government. It is
stated that on receipt of Ext.P1, petitioner submitted Ext.P2
request for permission to peruse the documents, which was not
allowed despite Ext.P3 reminder. It is stated that without
perusing the documents, he had submitted his reply. Enquiry was
conducted and report was submitted finding the petitioner guilty
of the charges. He was not given a copy of the report, but was
given only Ext.P4, an extract, along with Ext.P5 show cause notice
proposing to impose punishment of barring of two increments and
to recover the proportionate loss of Rs.2,849/-. Petitioner states
that he sought time for filing reply and was finally issued Ext.P7
imposing a punishment of barring of two increments with
cumulative effect and to recover Rs.2,849/-. He filed Ext.P8
WPC 35597/04
:2 :
appeal which was rejected by Ext.P9. It is challenging the above
proceedings, the writ petition is filed.
2. The first contention raised by the counsel for the
petitioner is that on receipt of Ext.P1, despite Exts.P2 and P3, he
was not allowed to peruse the documents and that in the
circumstances, he was forced to submit his explanation to the
memo of charges without perusing the documents that were
relied on against him. As far as this plea is concerned, from the
counter affidavit, what appears is that the memo of charges was
served on the petitioner on 1/9/99. It is stated that he had 15
days time to file his reply. After the expiry of the said period, he
submitted Ext.P2 request which reached the respondents on
20/9/99. It is stated that this was the background in which he filed
his reply. As already seen, the petitioner had 15 days time to file
his explanation to the memo of charges. Therefore, if he wanted
to peruse the documents in order to prepare and submit his reply,
he ought to have perused the documents or atleast made a
request before the expiry of the 15 days allowed.
3. The counter affidavit states that not only that the
petitioner did not report at the office of the respondents within
WPC 35597/04
:3 :
the 15 days period allowed, but also that he did not make even a
request within the time allowed to submit his reply. There is no
affidavit in reply to this counter affidavit. In the facts as stated
above, I cannot find fault with the respondents in not having
conceded to the request made by the delinquent belatedly. If so, I
cannot find fault with the respondents in not having taken any
action on Exts.P2 or P3 also.
4. The second ground urged is that the petitioner was not
given a copy of the enquiry report. It is stated that instead of
giving the enquiry report, he was given only Ext.P4, an extract of
the report. It is contended that by this process, natural justice
has been violated. The principles of natural justice require that a
delinquent should be given copy of the enquiry report. However,
violation of natural justice by itself will not result in invalidation of
the proceedings. In cases where a report of domestic enquiry is
not served on the delinquent, he can successfully get the
proceedings invalidated only if he has pleaded and proved that
prejudice has been caused on account of non supply of the
enquiry report. It has been so held by the Apex Court in Haryana
Financial Corporation and another v. Kailash Chandra
WPC 35597/04
:4 :
Ahuja [2008 (9) SCC 31}. In this case, there is no pleading,
muchless any proof of any prejudice that was caused to the
petitioner.
5. That apart, Ext.P4 was enclosed to Ext.P5 show cause
notice. On receipt of show cause notice, Ext.P6 application was
filed by the petitioner seeking time for filing reply. In Ext.P6, he
has not raised any complaint about the non furnishing of the
enquiry report. That apart, failure to furnish copy of the enquiry
report has not been raised as a ground even in Ext.P8 appeal filed
by the petitioner. In such circumstances, petitioner has miserably
failed to establish that by virtue of the failure of the respondents
in furnishing copy of the enquiry report, any prejudice has been
caused to him. In such circumstances, this ground also did not
call for any interference.
6. In the circumstances, I am not persuaded to interfere
with the impugned orders.
Writ petition fails and is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp