Y.L.Reghu vs State Of Kerala on 9 October, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP.No. 31370 of 2001(H)



1. Y.L.REGHU
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.JAJU BABU

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :09/10/2009

 O R D E R
                         S. SIRI JAGAN, J
               ...............................................
                    O.P. No.31370 of 2001
              .................................................
         Dated this the 9th day of October, 2009

                         J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P11 order of the

Government by which the petitioner has been imposed with the

punishment of barring one increment for one year with

cumulative effect, for misconducts allegedly committed by him,

while he was working as Intelligence Officer in the office of the

Deputy Commissioner, Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax,

Ernakulam. The primary contention of the petitioner is that after

the enquiry officer submitted his report, despite the petitioner’s

request for a copy of the enquiry report, the same was not

furnished to him. The same was given to him only along with

Ext.P11 order of punishment. According to the petitioner, the

same amounts to violation of principles of natural justice as held

by the Supreme Court in Union of India & Otrs. v. Mohd.

Ramzankhan [1991 (1) SCC 588].

2. A counter affidavit has been filed in which it is admitted

that before passing order of punishment, copy of the enquiry

O.P. No.31370 of 2001 -2-

report was not furnished to the petitioner. It is settled law that

before imposing punishment on the basis of an enquiry report, a

delinquent should be given an opportunity to file representation

both against the enquiry report as well as the proposed

punishment. When admittedly before imposing punishment the

copy of the enquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner,

clearly the same amounts to violation of principles of natural

justice as held in Ramzankhan’s case (supra). Accordingly

Ext.P11 order is quashed. If the Government so wishes, they

may take further steps in accordance with law, if even at this

point of time the Government intends to do so.

The writ petition is allowed as above.

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
rhs