IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 20313 of 2009(S)
1. R.RAJENDRAN,AGED 57 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. UNION OF INDIA,REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF
3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,FOREST & WILD
4. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :20/07/2009
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W. P.(C) No. 20313 OF 2009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 20th day of July, 2009
JUDGMENT
BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J
The writ petitioner was the applicant in OA No.628/09 which
was dismissed by Ext.P5 order of the CAT, Ernakulam Bench.
Challenging that order, this writ petition is filed. The brief facts of the
case are the following.
2. The writ petitioner was directly recruited to the post of
Assistant Conservator of Forests. On completion of 8 years of
service, he was eligible to be considered for appointment to the
Indian Forest Service. In fact he was all along being included in the
list of candidates selected for appointment to IFS from 1994
onwards, except for one or two years, when there were no vacancies
to be filled up from Kerala. But, he was not appointed for the reason
that the State Government has not issued the integrity certificate,
within the prescribed time limit. The State Government declined to
issue integrity certificate for the reason that he was facing trial before
the Special Judge for offences involving corruption. Ultimately, the
WP(C) No.20313/09
-:2:-
petitioner retired from service on superannuation, on 30.04.06 and
the criminal case pending against him in CC No.30/02 was disposed
of by Annexure A5 judgment produced along with Ext.P1 Original
Application on 24.10.08. He was acquitted of all charges. In the
mean time, another criminal case was registered against him and the
same was numbered as CC No.8/06 and he was facing trial in that
case. After the acquittal in CC No.30/02, the petitioner approached
the CAT, praying to make his inclusion in Annexure A2 list for
appointment to IFS as unconditional and also to promote him from
the 1994-95 select list. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal
dismissed the application. Tribunal noticed that there is no sealed
cover procedure for appointment to the IFS and therefore the case
cannot be examined after acquittal based on the decision contained
in the sealed cover. An incumbent can be appointed to IFS, if only
an integrity certificate is issued by the State Government at the
relevant time within the prescribed time limit. The Government had
not issued integrity certificate up to his date of retirement for the
reason that he was an officer facing trial for corruption charges
before the competent criminal court. Based on that finding, the
WP(C) No.20313/09
-:3:-
Original Application was dismissed by the Tribunal. Tribunal also
directed the Central Government to consider whether the sealed
cover procedure can be followed for appointment to IFS. That
direction also is not beneficial to the petitioner as he has already
retired from service. In the above factual background, the writ
petitioner filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P5.
3. We heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
Union Public Service Commission.
4. The point to be considered is whether the State Government
could have issued the integrity certificate when an incumbent was
facing trial before a criminal court for corruption charges. In our
opinion, we have no doubt that the Government could not have
issued integrity certificate for such an officer. Learned counsel for
the petitioner pointed out that in the year 2002, he was not facing
any trial before the Criminal court. But his efforts to get the integrity
certificate issued during the said period did not succeed, in view of
the dismissal of OA No.843/02 filed by him. A copy of the order in
that Original Application is produced as Annexure A1 along with
Ext.P1 Original Application. The point which remains to be
WP(C) No.20313/09
-:4:-
considered is whether on acquittal, the petitioner can claim integrity
certificate with retrospective effect for the year 1994-95 or for
subsequent years. The relevant rules do not provide for such a
procedure. The integrity certificate has to be issued during the
relevant year when he is included in the list. If the same is not issued
at the relevant time, there is no provision for extension of time. In
view of the said position, we find nothing wrong with the decision of
the CAT. We fully agree with the reasons and conclusions of the
Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE
ttb