{"id":44205,"date":"2010-10-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-damodaran-pillay-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2010"},"modified":"2017-05-20T16:05:26","modified_gmt":"2017-05-20T10:35:26","slug":"j-damodaran-pillay-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-damodaran-pillay-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"J.Damodaran Pillay vs State Of Kerala on 22 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
J.Damodaran Pillay vs State Of Kerala on 22 October, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nOP.No. 11268 of 2000(N)\n\n\n\n1. J.DAMODARAN PILLAY\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN\n\n Dated :22\/10\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
            Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan<\/p>\n
                         &<\/p>\n
                P.Bhavadasan, JJ.\n<\/p>\n
  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
       O.P.Nos.11268\/2000-N & 25919\/2000-I<\/p>\n
  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
      Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2010.<\/p>\n
                     Judgment<\/p>\n
                                         “CR”\n<\/p>\n
  Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.<\/p>\n
1.These original petitions filed under Article 226<\/p>\n
 of the Constitution of India come before the<\/p>\n
 Division Bench on a reference on the question as<\/p>\n
 to whether, in a case where the proceedings for<\/p>\n
 imposition of a major penalty were initiated<\/p>\n
 against a government servant, a minor penalty<\/p>\n
 could be imposed, without serving the copy of the<\/p>\n
 report of the enquiry on the delinquent. The<\/p>\n
 reference was necessitated as the learned Judge<\/p>\n
 found  conflict  of  opinion   in the judgments of<\/p>\n
 this  Court in   Janardhanan1   and  Shaji  Lukose2<\/p>\n
OP.11268 & 25919\/2000     -: 2 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 holding that the copy of the enquiry report has<\/p>\n
 to     be    served;  and     Balakrishna  Pillai3  and<\/p>\n
 Eacharan4 being rendered to the contrary.<\/p>\n
2.Rule      15     of  the     Kerala   Civil   Services<\/p>\n
 (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960,<\/p>\n
 the “Rules” for short, provides the procedure for<\/p>\n
 imposing major penalties. Rule 16 of the Rules<\/p>\n
 provides        the  procedure    for  imposing   minor<\/p>\n
 penalties.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.Appearing       for the    petitioners,   Adv.N.Santha<\/p>\n
 argued that her clients were not served with the<\/p>\n
 enquiry reports and therefore, the proceedings<\/p>\n
 imposing penalty are invalid. She argued that the<\/p>\n
 totality of the facts and circumstances clearly<\/p>\n
 indicated       that the   alleged   transaction is not<\/p>\n
 proved and did not call for the imposition of<\/p>\n
 any penalty, much less, a minor penalty and that<\/p>\n
 as the enquiry reports were not furnished to the<\/p>\n
 delinquents, the imposition of penalty is without<\/p>\n
 jurisdiction and wholly unfounded.<\/p>\n
OP.11268 & 25919\/2000      -: 3 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
4.On behalf of the Government, Senior Government<\/p>\n
 Pleader Adv.Lakshmi Narayanan argued that the<\/p>\n
 submissions on behalf of the petitioners do not<\/p>\n
 merit consideration, having regard to the law<\/p>\n
 laid by the Apex Court and explained by this<\/p>\n
 Court in Mohammed Faisal5. He also argued that<\/p>\n
 the petitioners had no case at any time before<\/p>\n
 the filing of these original petitions that they<\/p>\n
 were unaware of the contents of the enquiry<\/p>\n
 reports or were, in any manner, prejudiced by the<\/p>\n
 failure to be given the copies of the enquiry<\/p>\n
 reports. He pointed out that the appeals and<\/p>\n
 revisions       filed   by  the   petitioners contained<\/p>\n
 specific challenge to            the   findings as are<\/p>\n
 contained in the enquiry reports and the show<\/p>\n
 cause notices issued for imposition of minor<\/p>\n
 penalty contained the findings entered against<\/p>\n
 the     petitioners     in   the  enquiry  reports. He<\/p>\n
 accordingly        argued that    the petitioners  have<\/p>\n
 failed to demonstrate any case of prejudice and<\/p>\n
 there is no scope for interference with the<\/p>\n
OP.11268 & 25919\/2000       -: 4 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 disciplinary proceedings, in writ jurisdiction.<\/p>\n
5.Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against<\/p>\n
 the petitioners for imposition of major penalty.<\/p>\n
 Memos of charges were issued to them. Written<\/p>\n
 statements of defence were submitted by them.<\/p>\n
 This was followed by inquiry as enjoined by Rule<\/p>\n
 15 of the Rules. After receipt of the enquiry<\/p>\n
 reports, the disciplinary authority, namely, the<\/p>\n
 District Collector, decided to proceed against<\/p>\n
 the petitioners for imposition of only a minor<\/p>\n
 penalty. Therefore, show cause notices, making<\/p>\n
 reference to the findings in the enquiry reports,<\/p>\n
 were issued to the petitioners. They replied.<\/p>\n
 After considering the replies, minor penalties<\/p>\n
 were      imposed     on  them.     They  unsuccessfully<\/p>\n
 challenged         such  decisions     in  appeals  and<\/p>\n
 revisions before the Board of Revenue and the<\/p>\n
 Government        respectively.    Hence these original<\/p>\n
 petitions.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6.In terms of the law as it stood before the 42nd<\/p>\n
OP.11268 & 25919\/2000     -: 5 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 Amendment        to  the Constitution    in  1976,  a<\/p>\n
 reasonable opportunity of showing cause to the<\/p>\n
 proposed action in disciplinary proceedings was<\/p>\n
 found to contain a right to represent against the<\/p>\n
 proposed penalty also. As noticed by the Division<\/p>\n
 Bench of this Court in Mohammed Faisal5, this<\/p>\n
 view which held the field prior to 1976 and was<\/p>\n
 re-stated in Khem Chand6, does not survive the<\/p>\n
 addition       of   the proviso    to  Article  311(2)<\/p>\n
 inserted by the 42nd Amendment. The opportunity to<\/p>\n
 make      a   representation    against the   proposed<\/p>\n
 penalty      ceased to be a guaranteed constitutional<\/p>\n
 safeguard. In Tulsiram Patel7, the validity of<\/p>\n
 that amendment was upheld. As explained by this<\/p>\n
 Court in Mohammed Faisal5, the situation came to<\/p>\n
 be     one     where,  after    having filed   written<\/p>\n
 statement       to  the memo     of charges  and upon<\/p>\n
 conclusion of the inquiry after witnesses are<\/p>\n
 examined and documentary evidence admitted to the<\/p>\n
 enquiry proceedings, the delinquent remains in<\/p>\n
 the dark as to the conclusions of the inquiring<\/p>\n
 authority and the decision that the disciplinary<\/p>\n
OP.11268 & 25919\/2000      -: 6 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 authority may take on the conclusions of the<\/p>\n
 inquiring authority. This situation was sought to<\/p>\n
 be rectified by the law laid by the Apex Court in<\/p>\n
 Ram Chander8. In view of that, Mohd. Ramzan Khan9<\/p>\n
 was rendered by the Apex Court holding that the<\/p>\n
 enquiry report being an adverse material, the<\/p>\n
 employee       shall be given an opportunity to submit<\/p>\n
 as    to    why    the report should not be accepted by<\/p>\n
 the disciplinary authority. Then, the Apex Court<\/p>\n
 laid     down     in  B.Karunakar10 that even  if   the<\/p>\n
 enquiry report is not served, unless prejudice is<\/p>\n
 shown to have been occasioned to the delinquent,<\/p>\n
 interference with the disciplinary proceedings is<\/p>\n
 not warranted. It was also laid down that even if<\/p>\n
 prejudice is shown, the court should hear on the<\/p>\n
 objections        of the   delinquent  against  enquiry<\/p>\n
 report and unless the court is impressed with the<\/p>\n
 objections, the enquiry proceedings should not be<\/p>\n
 mechanically set aside and the matter remitted as<\/p>\n
 that would only be an empty formality.<\/p>\n
7.The    core     principle   emanating from  a   proper<\/p>\n
OP.11268 & 25919\/2000      -: 7 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 understanding of the precedents referred to above<\/p>\n
 is      that     a   delinquent    does   not  have   a<\/p>\n
 constitutional       right   to   represent against the<\/p>\n
 proposed penalty, he having been heard in the<\/p>\n
 enquiry, and, even if the disciplinary authority<\/p>\n
 is not the inquiring authority and the punishment<\/p>\n
 was imposed by the disciplinary authority without<\/p>\n
 hearing the delinquent on the findings of the<\/p>\n
 inquiring       authority,   the  courts,  in  judicial<\/p>\n
 review, would not interfere with the imposition<\/p>\n
 of the punishment unless it is proved to its<\/p>\n
 satisfaction that the absence of hearing on the<\/p>\n
 correctness of the findings in the enquiry report<\/p>\n
 and the punishment as imposed, have resulted in<\/p>\n
 miscarriage of justice.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
8.Now, in the context of the Kerala Public Services<\/p>\n
 Act, 1968 and the Rules, treating them as a<\/p>\n
 statute       and   rules  framed    in  terms of   the<\/p>\n
 Constitution,        we  shall     examine  whether   a<\/p>\n
 delinquent has the right to be furnished a copy<\/p>\n
 of the      report and be heard on the correctness or<\/p>\n
OP.11268 & 25919\/2000      -: 8 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 otherwise       of  the  enquiry     report before the<\/p>\n
 imposition of a minor penalty on the basis of<\/p>\n
 that      report;     merely     because  the  employer<\/p>\n
 commenced the disciplinary proceedings on the<\/p>\n
 assumption that the delinquent has incurred the<\/p>\n
 liability, by his misconduct, to suffer a major<\/p>\n
 penalty in terms of the Rules.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
9.Rule 15 of the Rules contains the procedure for<\/p>\n
 imposing major penalties. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 15<\/p>\n
 provides that no order imposing any among the<\/p>\n
 penalties specified in items (v) to (ix) of Rule<\/p>\n
 11(1) shall be passed except after an inquiry<\/p>\n
 held as far as may be, in the manner provided in<\/p>\n
 Rule 15. Those penalties are called the major<\/p>\n
 penalties.        Items (i) to (iv) in Rule 11(1) are<\/p>\n
 called the minor penalties. Rule 16(1) of the<\/p>\n
 Rules provides that no order imposing any of the<\/p>\n
 minor penalties shall be passed except after<\/p>\n
 following the prescriptions therein. That does<\/p>\n
 not include the requirement to hold an inquiry as<\/p>\n
 provided for in Rule 15 or to furnish to the<\/p>\n
OP.11268 & 25919\/2000    -: 9 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 delinquent a copy of report of the inquiring<\/p>\n
 authority. Adverting to Rule 15(12), it can be<\/p>\n
 seen that where the disciplinary authority is the<\/p>\n
 inquiring authority, the report of the inquiring<\/p>\n
 authority; and where the disciplinary authority<\/p>\n
 is not the inquiring authority, a statement of<\/p>\n
 the findings of the disciplinary authority with<\/p>\n
 brief reasons for disagreement, if any, with the<\/p>\n
 findings of the inquiring authority; has to be<\/p>\n
 served on the delinquent, if the disciplinary<\/p>\n
 authority, having regard to the findings on the<\/p>\n
 charges, is of the opinion that any among the<\/p>\n
 major penalties should be imposed. The delinquent<\/p>\n
 is to be given notice stating the action proposed<\/p>\n
 to be taken and calling upon him to submit such<\/p>\n
 representation as he may wish to make against the<\/p>\n
 proposed action. However, Rule 15(13) of the<\/p>\n
 Rules       provides  that     if the disciplinary<\/p>\n
 authority, having regard to its findings, is of<\/p>\n
 the opinion that any of the minor penalties<\/p>\n
 should be imposed, it shall pass appropriate<\/p>\n
 orders in the case subject of course, to the<\/p>\n
OP.11268 & 25919\/2000      -: 10 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 requirement         to  consult    the   Public  Service<\/p>\n
 Commission in every case in which it is necessary<\/p>\n
 to do so. Sub-rule (13) of Rule 15 is, therefore,<\/p>\n
 made      visualizing     the     contingency   where  a<\/p>\n
 disciplinary authority may, having regard to the<\/p>\n
 findings       following  the     inquiry, come  to  the<\/p>\n
 opinion      that    it would     suffice that  a  minor<\/p>\n
 penalty is imposed instead of imposing any among<\/p>\n
 the major penalties as originally contemplated<\/p>\n
 without initiating proceedings on the basis of<\/p>\n
 the allegations. Sub-rules (12) and (13) of Rule<\/p>\n
 15    of    the    Rules being     statutory, the  clear<\/p>\n
 expressions made therein regarding the respective<\/p>\n
 procedures to be adopted by the disciplinary<\/p>\n
 authority       depending    on   the  opinion  that  it<\/p>\n
 formulates on the basis of the findings in the<\/p>\n
 inquiry, categorically show that the maker of the<\/p>\n
 Rules contemplated that there may be cases where<\/p>\n
 proceedings would commence on the premise that a<\/p>\n
 major penalty has to be imposed, having regard to<\/p>\n
 the gravity of the allegations, however that, on<\/p>\n
 conclusion        of  the   inquiry,   the   disciplinary<\/p>\n
OP.11268 & 25919\/2000      -: 11 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 authority would come to the opinion that the<\/p>\n
 proved allegations would call for imposition of<\/p>\n
 only a minor penalty. The clear words of sub-<\/p>\n
 rules      (12)    and (13)     of Rule  15,  therefore,<\/p>\n
 specifically provide that if the proposal is to<\/p>\n
 impose a major penalty, however that, the copy of<\/p>\n
 the enquiry report is to be furnished; there is<\/p>\n
 no requirement to furnish the copy of the enquiry<\/p>\n
 report, if the proposal is only to impose a minor<\/p>\n
 penalty. This principle was discerned and applied<\/p>\n
 in Balakrishna Pillai3 and in Eacharan4. It is<\/p>\n
 apposite in this context to quote Eacharan4 as<\/p>\n
 follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            “5. The      learned     counsel   for   the
\n            petitioner would submit that where the
\n            ultimate penalty imposed is only minor
\n            penalty, if the proceedings had commenced
\n            under Rule 15 and not under Rule 16, it is
\n            incumbent on the disciplinary authority to
\n            supply copy of the inquiry report to the
\n            government servant and to give him an
\n            opportunity to make a representation and
\n            the disciplinary authority has to consider
\n            such    representation   as  contemplated in<\/p>\n
OP.11268 & 25919\/2000      -: 12 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
            sub-rule (12) of rule 15 of the Rules.
\n            This     argument     does  not  stand   legal
\n            scrutiny. There is a definite scheme and
\n            pattern    behind    Rules 15 and 16.  Broadly
\n            speaking Rule 15 deals with procedure for
\n            the imposition of major penalty, while
\n            rule 16 deals with procedure for imposing
\n            minor penalties. Reading the two rules
\n            together, there can be no doubt that in a
\n            proceeding commencing under rule 16 only a
\n            minor penalty can be imposed and not a
\n            major    penalty.      But, in  a   proceeding
\n            commencing    under     Rule 15,  disciplinary
\n            authority or the Government, as the case
\n            may be, has choice of two course in the
\n            matter of imposition of penalty. It is
\n            open    to  the   authority   to  follow   the
\n            mandate     of    sub-rule    (12)   and    in
\n            appropriate cases, impose major penalty.
\n            It    is  also  open     to the  authority  to
\n            refrain    from    following   the   procedure
\n            provided under sub-rule (12) but to follow
\n            the procedure laid down in sub-rule (13)
\n            of Rule 15 of the Rules and to impose only
\n            a minor penalty. Difference between sub-
\n            rules (12) and (13) of Rule 15 indicate
\n            the difference between the procedures to
\n            be followed in the matter of imposition of
\n            major and minor penalties in a proceeding
\n            commencing under Rule 15 of the Rules. The<\/p>\n
OP.11268 & 25919\/2000      -: 13 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
            procedure prescribed in sub-rule (13) is
\n            analogous, so to say, to the procedure
\n            prescribed in Rule 16. Rule 16 as well as
\n            sub-rule (13) of Rule 15 contemplate only
\n            grant of one opportunity to the government
\n            servant concerned and that opportunity is
\n            to make a representation in regard to the
\n            charges framed against him of the show-
\n            cause notice. The right of the government
\n            servant in such cases is to ensure that
\n            his representation is considered before
\n            the disciplinary authority imposes minor
\n            penalty.    But,     where ultimately major
\n            penalty is to be imposed, the government
\n            servant has the right to insist on two
\n            opportunities as the rules stand now. The
\n            rules have not been amended even though
\n            Article 311(2) of the Constitution has
\n            been amended. As the rules stand now,
\n            before a major penalty can be actually
\n            imposed on a government servant, he has to
\n            receive two opportunities, one to submit a
\n            written statement of defence in answer to
\n            the    charges  and    the other  to submit
\n            representation in regard to the penalty
\n            proposed to be imposed on him in the light
\n            of the findings in the inquiry report and
\n            he can also insist on being furnished with
\n            a copy of the report.\n<\/p>\n
OP.11268 & 25919\/2000      -: 14 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
            5A. Understanding rules 15 and 16 in the
\n            light of the broad scheme as explained
\n            above, it is clear that where a proceeding
\n            for     imposition     of major  penalty is
\n            commenced    against    a government servant
\n            under Rule 15 of the Rules and an inquiry
\n            report is submitted, if the disciplinary
\n            authority or the government, as the case
\n            may be, is of the opinion that it is a fit
\n            case to impose only a minor penalty and
\n            not a major penalty, that authority is to
\n            follow the procedure prescribed in sub-
\n            rule(13) of Rule 15 and not the procedure
\n            prescribed       under     sub-rule    (12).
\n            Consequently, it must follow that in such
\n            a case the government servant has no right
\n            to insist on being furnished with a copy
\n            of the inquiry report or being given an
\n            opportunity to make representation against
\n            the proposed action on the basis of the
\n            findings in the inquiry report and the
\n            evidence adduced during the inquiry. The
\n            present is the case, where the proceedings
\n            were initiated under Rule 15 as if it was
\n            proposed to impose a major penalty and
\n            after considering the inquiry report and
\n            the other circumstances in the case, the
\n            Government thought it fit to impose only a
\n            minor penalty. That being so, there is no
\n            illegality     in      the  government  not<\/p>\n
OP.11268 & 25919\/2000     -: 15 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
            furnishing a copy of the inquiry report to
\n            the petitioner or in not giving him an
\n            opportunity   once      again to  make    a
\n            representation     regarding  the  proposed
\n            action.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
10.We    are     of  the view     that the afore-quoted<\/p>\n
 expression of the principles of law governing the<\/p>\n
 procedure to be adopted in terms of sub-rules<\/p>\n
 (12) and (13) of Rule 15 of the Rules, as laid<\/p>\n
 down in Eacharan4, is in conformity with those<\/p>\n
 statutory provisions. Similar view in Balakrishna<\/p>\n
 Pillai3 also lays down the correct position of law<\/p>\n
 in this regard.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
11.We visualize that the precedents of co-equal<\/p>\n
 jurisdiction rendered earlier by this Court in<\/p>\n
 Balakrishna Pillai3         and Eacharan4  and   those<\/p>\n
 rendered by the Apex Court, noticed above by us,<\/p>\n
 were not brought to the notice of this Court<\/p>\n
 while Janardhanan1 and Shaji Lukose2        were heard<\/p>\n
 and decided. On the basis of the statutory rules,<\/p>\n
 the clear position is as laid down in Eacharan4,<\/p>\n
 to wit, that when the disciplinary authority<\/p>\n
OP.11268 & 25919\/2000      -: 16 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 takes      recourse    to   Rule    15(13),  it  is  not<\/p>\n
 necessary to abide by the requirement of Rule 15<\/p>\n
 (12), that the delinquent be furnished a copy of<\/p>\n
 the       report     of   the      inquiring   authority.<\/p>\n
 Janardhanan1        and Shaji Lukose2 cannot be treated<\/p>\n
 as correct in the light of what is stated above.<\/p>\n
12.Ultimately, it needs to be re-stated that in<\/p>\n
 view of B.Karunakar10 and Mohammed Faisal5 and as<\/p>\n
 found by us in paragraphs 6 and 7 above, the<\/p>\n
 courts would not interfere in judicial review<\/p>\n
 merely on the technical contention that the copy<\/p>\n
 of the enquiry report was not served even in<\/p>\n
 cases where what is ultimately imposed is a major<\/p>\n
 penalty and there would be no interference except<\/p>\n
 in cases where prejudice is demonstrated.<\/p>\n
13.Having answered the question of law referred for<\/p>\n
 decision to the Bench, we may state that the<\/p>\n
 defence      of    the  petitioners    to   the impugned<\/p>\n
 proceedings that the enquiry reports were not<\/p>\n
 given to them was never a ground either before<\/p>\n
OP.11268 & 25919\/2000      -: 17 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 the appellate authority or in the revision before<\/p>\n
 the Government. That issue was raised for the<\/p>\n
 first time in jurisdiction under Article 226 of<\/p>\n
 the      Constitution,     which     essentially   is  a<\/p>\n
 discretionary one and would not be exercised<\/p>\n
 unless injustice is demonstrated. The allegations<\/p>\n
 against the delinquents were that they, village<\/p>\n
 officers,         were   responsible      for  effecting<\/p>\n
 irregular mutations, suppressing the real state<\/p>\n
 of affairs, as regards lands involved in land<\/p>\n
 acquisition         proceedings      for   the   Kallada<\/p>\n
 Irrigation Project. The allegations were proved<\/p>\n
 on inquiry and such findings stand confirmed by<\/p>\n
 the statutory authorities. No sustainable plea of<\/p>\n
 glaring       illegality   or     irregularity as  would<\/p>\n
 warrant interference with those findings in writ<\/p>\n
 jurisdiction        is  pointed     out.  In  fact,  the<\/p>\n
 proceedings        before the     statutory  authorities,<\/p>\n
 including the appeals and revisions filed by the<\/p>\n
 petitioners would show that they were aware of<\/p>\n
 the contents of the enquiry reports and had<\/p>\n
 agitated before the appellate authority and in<\/p>\n
OP.11268 & 25919\/2000      -: 18 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 revision on the correctness of the findings in<\/p>\n
 the enquiry reports. The petitioners have also<\/p>\n
 failed to show that the findings in the inquiry<\/p>\n
 are perverse or that they were based on no<\/p>\n
 evidence. Therefore, there is no room whatsoever<\/p>\n
 to interfere with the impugned proceedings, on<\/p>\n
 the merits either.\n<\/p>\n
 For     the      aforesaid    reasons,  these  original<\/p>\n
 petitions are dismissed. The petitioners having<\/p>\n
 retired      from   government service and one of them<\/p>\n
 being no more, we desist from imposing any order<\/p>\n
 of costs against them.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                             Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,
\n                                        Judge.\n<\/p>\n
                                     P.Bhavadasan,
\n                                        Judge.\n<\/p>\n
\n 1 Janardhanan v. State of Kerala,<\/a> 2004(1) KLT SN
\n     103(Case No.133)
\n 2 Shaji Lokose v. State of Kerala,<\/a> 2007(1) KLT
\n     679<\/span><\/p>\n
OP.11268 & 25919\/2000    -: 19 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 3 Balakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala,<\/a> 1978 KLT
\n     928<\/span>
\n 4 Eacharan v. State of Kerala, 1983 KLT 22
\n 5 High Court of Kerala v. Mohammed Faisal,<\/a> 2010
\n     (1) KLT 857
\n 6 Khem Chand v. Union of India, AIR<\/a> 1958 SC 300
\n 7 Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, AIR<\/a> 1985 SC
\n     1416<\/span>
\n 8 Ram Chander v. Union of India, AIR<\/a> 1986 SC 1173
\n 9 Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, AIR<\/a> 1991
\n     SC 471
\n 10 Managing Director,       E.C.I.L. v. B.Karunakar,<\/a>
\n     (1993) 4 SCC 727.\n<\/p>\n
\nSha\/2810<\/p>\n
                                        P.S.to Judge.\n<\/p>\n
OP.11268 & 25919\/2000    -: 20 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                    Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan<\/p>\n
                                                 &<\/p>\n
                                        P.Bhavadasan, JJ.\n<\/p>\n
                                  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
                                    O.P.Nos.11268\/2000-N<\/p>\n
                                       & 25919\/2000-I<\/p>\n
                                  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
                                             Judgment<\/p>\n
                                        22nd October, 2010.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court J.Damodaran Pillay vs State Of Kerala on 22 October, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM OP.No. 11268 of 2000(N) 1. J.DAMODARAN PILLAY … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER The Hon’ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN The Hon’ble MR. Justice […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-44205","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJ.Damodaran Pillay vs State Of Kerala on 22 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-damodaran-pillay-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"J.Damodaran Pillay vs State Of Kerala on 22 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-damodaran-pillay-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-10-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-20T10:35:26+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-damodaran-pillay-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-damodaran-pillay-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"J.Damodaran Pillay vs State Of Kerala on 22 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-20T10:35:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-damodaran-pillay-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3038,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-damodaran-pillay-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-damodaran-pillay-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-damodaran-pillay-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2010\",\"name\":\"J.Damodaran Pillay vs State Of Kerala on 22 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-20T10:35:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-damodaran-pillay-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-damodaran-pillay-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-damodaran-pillay-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"J.Damodaran Pillay vs State Of Kerala on 22 October, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"J.Damodaran Pillay vs State Of Kerala on 22 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-damodaran-pillay-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"J.Damodaran Pillay vs State Of Kerala on 22 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-damodaran-pillay-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-20T10:35:26+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-damodaran-pillay-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-damodaran-pillay-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"J.Damodaran Pillay vs State Of Kerala on 22 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-20T10:35:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-damodaran-pillay-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2010"},"wordCount":3038,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-damodaran-pillay-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-damodaran-pillay-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-damodaran-pillay-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2010","name":"J.Damodaran Pillay vs State Of Kerala on 22 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-20T10:35:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-damodaran-pillay-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-damodaran-pillay-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-damodaran-pillay-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"J.Damodaran Pillay vs State Of Kerala on 22 October, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44205","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=44205"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44205\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=44205"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=44205"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=44205"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}