IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2009 / 29TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 20313 of 2009(S) ------------- -------------------------- OA.628/2008 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- R.RAJENDRAN,AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.N.K.RAMAKRISHNA PANICKER,(DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS,(NON-CADRE)(RETD),AGASTHIAVANAM BIOLOGICAL PARK (SIP) FOREST HEADQUARTERS, TRIVANDRUM-14) RESIDING AT "SARAS",NO.TC 75/142, ANAYARA.P.O,TRIVANDRUM-29. BY ADV. SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMNT OF INDIA,MINISTRY OF FOREST & ENVIRONMENT,NEW DELHI. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,STATE SECRETARIAT,TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,FOREST & WILD LIFE DEPARTMENT,TRIVANDRUM-4. 4. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, SHAJAHAN ROAD,DHOLPUR HOUSE,NEW DELHI- THROUGH ITS SECRETARY. R1 BY ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR R2 & R3 BY SPECIAL GOVT. PLEADER (TAXES) SRI.M.P.PRAKASH R4 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 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