IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2010 / 8TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 6509 of 2009(G) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- C.M.SAHEER, S/O.A.K.MAKKAR, AGED 48 YEARS, R/AT CHIRAKKAKUDIYIL HOUSE, KAVUMKARA, MARKET P.O., VELLOORKUNNAM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA, PRESENTLY WORKING AS JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.AJEESH S.BRITE RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, TRANS TOWER, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. * 3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA. SRI. T.T. MUHAMOOD, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1-R3 ( * THE NAME OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT IS CORRECTED AS PER THE ORDER DATED 24/11/2009 IN I.A. NO.14569 OF 2009) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 6509 of 2009(G) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES AND STATEMENT OF ALLEGATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMISSION DATED 25/6/2002 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, PERUMBAVOOR. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMISSION DATED 5/7/2002 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, PERUMBAVOOR. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT OF THE ENQUIRY OFFICER. EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14/5/2006 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 7/6/2006 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31/10/007 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.35666/07. EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 5/4/2008. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE scm K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C). No. 6509 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner while working as U.D. Clerk at Sub Regional Transport Office, Perumbavoor, Exhibit P1 memo of charges was issued to him. The allegation was that he committed dereliction and negligence of duty and caused deliberate delay in submitting Service Verification Reports and Grant of Tax Exemption in respect of Goods Vehicles KEE 2489. The allegations were made against three persons. They were the Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector, the L.D.Clerk and the petitioner. The Transport Commissioner passed Exhibit P5 order dated 14/5/2006 holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner and others were proved as found by the Regional Transport Officer, Muvattupuzha on his enquiry. The petitioner and the other two persons referred to above were awarded a punishment of bar of increment for one year with cumulative effect. In Exhibit P5 order, the punishment is termed as a minor punishment. In fact, it is a major punishment going by Rule 11(1)(vA) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1960 [Clause (vA) was inserted by W.P(C). No. 6509/2009 2 G.O.(P) 28/2002/P& ARD dated 16/5/2002]. 2. Challenging Exhibit P5 order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Government. It was found by the appellate authority that there was procedural irregularity and that Rule15 (12)(i)(a) &(b) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules was not property complied with. Therefore, the Transport Commissioner was directed to pass fresh orders after complying with the procedural requirements. After complying with the procedural requirements, the Transport Commissioner passed Exhibit P7 order dated 31/10/2007 holding that the charges were proved and that the provisional decision to award the punishment of barring increment for one year with cumulative effect was to be confirmed. Against Exhibit P7 order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Government. The Appeal was disposed of by the Government as per Exhibit P10 order dated 5/4/2008 holding that the order passed by the Transport Commissioner is right. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected. The petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash Exhibits P1, P5, P7 and P10. W.P(C). No. 6509/2009 3 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no evidence to show that the petitioner is guilty of the charges levelled against him. The petitioner was transferred to C1-Section and he took charge in the Section only on 25/6/2002 He worked there till 15/9/2003. The Service Verification Report was submitted by the Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector on 23/4/2002. The U.D. Clerk, who was working in the C1-Section, did not take prompt action in the matter. After the petitioner took charge in C1-Section, he submitted Exhibit P2 submission to the Joint Regional Transport Officer on 25/6/2002 stating that he did not receive all the files. The petitioner again submitted Exhibit P3 representation dated 5/7/2002 before the Transport Commissioner stating that he had received only a few files and registers and five items of files and registers mentioned in Exhibit P3 were not received by him from the former U.D.Clerk in the Section. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the primary authority as well as the appellate authority had acted on surmises and conjectures. The punishment was imposed on the presumption that the petitioner might have received the registers W.P(C). No. 6509/2009 4 and there was delay on the part of the petitioner to submit the relevant files before the officer concerned. 4. The Transport Commissioner as well as the Government heard the petitioner in detail, perused the records and arrived at a finding that the petitioner was guilty of the charges levelled against him in part. When the appeal was taken up for hearing before the Government, it was even adjourned for making available all the files. The files were produced before the appellate authority. The files relating to the enquiry were also perused by the appellate authority. The finding arrived at is based on consideration of the facts of the case. Normally, no interference under Article 226 would be made on a finding of fact. 5. Even going by Exhibit P3, there was no case for the petitioner that the files or registers in respect of G-Forms were not received by him. On the other hand, Exhibit P3 would indicate that some of the files in respect of the same were received by him. The learned Government Pleader showed for perusal an acknowledgment signed by the petitioner on W.P(C). No. 6509/2009 5 25/6/2002, acknowledging the receipt of the records in respect of the vehicle KEE-2489, which is the vehicle in question in the present case. This document was made available at the time of enquiry and it is part of the enquiry files and it was made available before the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Government. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the findings were rendered on the basis of relevant documents and data. 6. No grounds are made out under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the Transport Commissioner and the Government. The authorities below found that the procedural requirements were complied with in the case. There is no case for the petitioner that there was violation of any of the rules of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules in the matter of enquiry and in the matter of issuing memo of charges and Show Cause Notice. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. W.P(C). No. 6509/2009 6 8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are irregularities in implementing the bar of increment, which has resulted in the denial of promotion to the petitioner. If the petitioner has any such grievance, he would be free to take up the matter before the appropriate forum. It is made clear the aforesaid contention is not a question raised in the Writ Petition and it is not decided in this Writ Petition. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm