IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 26TH JULY 2010 / 4TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23229 of 2010(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K.CHANDRAKUMAR,S/O.LATE V.KRISHNA PILLAI SECURITY OFFICER, KERALA DRUGS AND PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., KALAVOOR, ALAPPUZHA, RESIDING AT NEEROTTUMUTTAL HOUSE,BCRA D29, T.C.4/820(3),KOWDIAR PO,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.SUNIL SRI.K.B.PRADEEP RESPONDENT: --------------- KERALA STATE DRUGS AND PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, KALAVOOR, ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY SRI. B.SAJEEVKUMAR, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.23229 of 2010 (C) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 26th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was working as Security Officer of the respondent Company. Ext.P1 is the memo of charges that was issued to the petitioner. There are two charges levelled against the petitioner. Both are in relation to the lapses on the part of the petitioner while supervising cutting and pruning of trees from the land belonging to the respondent Company by the contractor appointed in that behalf. Firstly, it was alleged that the contractor was allowed to cut 102 numbers or more trees, which were not covered by the contract, and was allowed to take away the wood causing financial loss to the tune of Rs.28,671/- to the respondent Company. The second charge was that he failed to bring the aforesaid act of the contractor to the notice of the Management. A written statement was filed by the petitioner, which was rejected. An enquiry was ordered, and in the enquiry, witnesses were examined and on closure thereof, Ext.P6 report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer concluding that WP(C) No.23229/2010 -2- charge No.2 in Ext.P1 was proved against the petitioner. After complying with the procedural formalities, by Ext.P7 order dated 01/04/2008, the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of stoppage of three increments without cumulative effect. It was also ordered that the actual financial loss of Rs.28,671/- caused to the Company, as assessed by the Forest Department, shall be paid by the petitioner. This order also states that the suggestion of the Forest Department to recover Rs.50,000/- per hectre from the responsible personnel for re-plantation was dispensed with for the reasons mentioned therein. 2. The petitioner filed appeal against Ext.P7 order. The appeal was considered and the appellate authority issued Ext.P8 dated 31/10/2008 reducing the punishment by stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect, but however decided to recover the loss of Rs.28,671/- from the petitioner. Representation, a copy of which is Ext.P9, made to the Chairman was also rejected by Ext.P10 order dated 17/06/2010. It is in these circumstances, this writ petition has been filed. 3. Evidently, Ext.P1 memo of charges, containing clear WP(C) No.23229/2010 -3- allegations of misconducts, was served on the petitioner, to which he submitted his reply. Enquiry was ordered, and in the enquiry, both the management and the defence adduced their evidence. It was after considering the oral evidence and other documents of both sides that the Enquiry Officer submitted his report finding the petitioner guilty of charge No.2. 4. A reading of the enquiry report in the light of the documents, does not lead me to think that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse warranting to be discarded. In the circumstances, the question is whether the punishment imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate. As already seen, the disciplinary authority imposed a punishment of stoppage of three increments without cumulative effect, and in the appeal, the punishment has been reduced to stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. This Court cannot say that the punishment as modified by the appellate authority is disproportionate to the gravity of the misconducts proved against the petitioner. Learned counsel then submits that the loss ordered to be recovered was not established or quantified properly. A reading of WP(C) No.23229/2010 -4- Ext.P1 memo of charges itself show that this quantification was done by the Forest Department. That apart, neither the reply to the memo of charges, nor the representation made by the petitioner on receipt of the show cause notice enclosing report of the Enquiry Officer, have been produced and therefore, this Court is not in a position to find out as to whether the petitioner raised any dispute about the quantification, and even if any such dispute is raised, on what basis such dispute has been raised. In any case, a reading of Ext.P1 memo of charges and Ext.P7 order passed by the disciplinary authority show that this quantification has been made by the Forest authorities. In the absence of any material suggesting that the estimation was erroneous, I cannot accept the submission of the petitioner that the quantification was erroneous warranting interference of this Court. This writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg