IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 28TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 26557 of 2010 (S) -------------------------------------------- OA.467/2008 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER: -------------------- K.BHASMAKARA RAO IFS, (NOW UNDER SUSPENSION) FOREST OFFICERS QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANJAY SMT.A.PARVATHI MENON SRI.BIJU MEENATTOOR RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTD BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE PRINCIPLE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, FOREST AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT, VAZHUTHACAUD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. MR. SURENDRAN ASARY (NOW RETIRED) THE THEN PRINCIPLE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, FOREST AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT, VAZHUTHACAUD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. SECRETARY , MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, B BLOCK CGO COMPLEX, LODY ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 003. SMT.SMITHA SUKUMARAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R-2 SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN, ASST.S.G. OF INDI FOR R1, 5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.26557 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of February 2011 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. Petitioner is an officer in the Indian Forest Service in the Kerala Cadre. He was deputed to Andhra Pradesh from August 1996 till September 1999. It appears that during his deputation in Andhra Pradesh, certain allegations of corruption were raised against him. It is on record that a case against the petitioner was registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. It is the admitted position that petitioner is now facing prosecution in the above case pursuant to the final report submitted by the Central Bureau of Investigation. 2. After coming back to his parent cadre in Kerala, petitioner had allegedly abstained from duty unauthorisedly from August 13, 2001 till February 21, 2005. According to the petitioner, he reported for duty on February 22, 2005. But he was not given any assignment. He was not paid salary or allowances. Petitioner's case is that he had been making repeated requests to the Government to assign him some duties and also to pay salary and allowances that he was entitled to get. But no action was taken by the Government in this regard. 3. In the meanwhile, by order dated July 9, 2007 petitioner was placed under suspension on the ground that he had been involved in a serious crime registered against him by the Central Bureau of Investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It was in the above circumstances that the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal. In O.A.No.467/08, the W.P.(C)No.26557 OF 2010 :: 2 :: primary prayer was to issue a direction to the respondents to pay salary and allowances to him from the date of his rejoining duty till the date of suspension. He had made a further prayer to issue a direction to the Government to pass orders on his applications for leave submitted by him from time to time. In the other Original Application filed by him (O.A.717/08), the prayers were to set aside the order of suspension passed against him and also to issue a direction to respondent No.1/Union of India to pass orders on the appeal preferred by him against the order of suspension. 4. The Tribunal, after considering the various contentions raised by the petitioner, held that the petitioner was not entitled to get any relief in O.A.717/08. However, O.A.467/08 was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to seek the views of the Union Public Service Commission as regards the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner and take an appropriate decision in the matter at the earliest. 5. When this writ petition came up for consideration before this court, a learned Assistant Solicitor General was directed to ascertain whether any decision has been taken in the matter as regards the disciplinary proceedings. Today, when the case is taken up, learned Assistant Solicitor General has filed a statement. The relevant portion of the statement is extracted hereunder: “ It is respectfully submitted that as per the directions of this Honourable Court, the First Respondent - Ministry had examined the matter with reference to the Charge sheet, Inquiry Report, Representation and the advice of the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). After the enquiry, the W.P.(C)No.26557 OF 2010 :: 3 :: first respondent had found that the Article of Charge framed against the petitioner is fully proved and the Ministry has accepted the advice tendered by the UPSC to impose a major penalty of “Removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment under the Government”. 6. It is further stated by the Assistant Solicitor General that the President of India has, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the advice of the Union Public Service Commission, come to the conclusion that ends of justice would be met if the penalty of removal from service be imposed on the petitioner. However, it has been further held that this punishment shall not be a disqualification for future employment for the petitioner under the Government. A true copy of the said order, dated February 14, 2011 has been produced along with the statement, which is taken on record as Ext.R1(a). 7. In that view of the matter, the challenge raised by the petitioner against the order in O.A.717/08 does not arise for consideration by us at this stage. However, it is made clear that it will be open to the petitioner to take recourse to the remedies available to him against the said order before the appropriate authority. 8. What remains is only the other grievance of the petitioner as regards the alleged refusal of the State Government to pay him salary and allowance for the period from February 22, 2005 till July 10, 2007. Learned counsel submits that the attitude of the Government through out, has been totally vindictive and unjust. We do not propose to deal with the above issue at this stage. However, in W.P.(C)No.26557 OF 2010 :: 4 :: our view, the Government has to necessarily take a decision in the matter which they shall do as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It will be open to the petitioner to submit a detailed representation in this regard, if so advised. This shall be done by him within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE jes