IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2008 / 8TH SRAVANA 1930 OP.No. 25118 of 2001(M) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- T. BABU, ASST. EXTENSION OFFICER, COFFEE BOARD, MALAMPUZHA ROAD, OLAVAKKOD, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU, ADV. SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE CHAIRMAN, COFFEE BOARD, BANGALORE. 2. COFFEE BOARD, BANGALORE, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 3. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI. BY THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/07/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. NO. 25118/2001-M: ORDER ON C.M.P. NOS. 41018/2001 & 49248/2002 IN O.P. NO. 25118/2001-M. DISMISSED 30/07/2008. SD/- P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. VIG.2000/170 DTD. 05/05/2000 ISSUED BY THE R.1. TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.3. ON 24/06/2000. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 1/9/2000-PLANT (B) DTD. 31/07/2001 ISSUED BY THE R.3. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 26/08/2002 VIDE NO. JLO/PGT/16/02/259 ISSUED BY COFFEE BOARD TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. prv. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ====================================== O.P.No.25118 of 2001 ====================================== Dated this the 30th day of July 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as Assistant Extension Officer in the Coffee Board. In this Original Petition he challenges Ext.P1 order dated 5.5.2000 passed by the Chairman of the Coffee Board and Ext.P3 order passed by the Government of India on appeal. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 2. While the petitioner was working as Assistant Extension Officer, a memo of charges dated 23.12.1999 was issued to him. The petitioner submitted a reply. An enquiry officer was appointed to conduct the departmental enquiry. The petitioner submitted a list of witnesses dated 2.8.1999 stating that he proposes to examine 4 witnesses including Sri.P.R.Kumar, Senior Laision Officer in the service of the Board. According to the petitioner, the payment in relation to which the charge memo was issued was made O.P.25118/2001 2 after it was duly approved by the Senior Laision Officer and that payment was made by cheque issued by the Senior Laision Officer. The petitioner contends that though the Senior Laision Officer was summoned to the Head Office of the Coffee Board at Bangalore, where the enquiry was conducted, he was not allowed to examine the said officer as a defence witness. Without affording him, adequate opportunity to adduce evidence in support of his defence plea, the enquiry officer submitted a report dated 23.12.1999. Thereafter the disciplinary authority, the Chairman of the Coffee Board passed Ext.P1 order dated 5.5.2000 imposing on the petitioner the punishment of reduction to the lowest stage in the time scale of pay for a period of two years with the further direction that he will not earn any increment during the said period and on expiry of the said period of two years, he will start earning increments from the lowest stage. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal. In the appeal memorandum, a copy of which is Ext.P2, the petitioner has specifically averred in Grounds F & G as follows: “F. The appellant made a request in writing to O.P.25118/2001 3 the Inquiry Officer to take evidence from the Sr.Laison Officer, Sri.P.R.Kumar but it was not considered. The statement of the regular Sr.Laison Officer Sri.P.R.Kumar who was holding the charges of the office, when the purchase was effected and have made physical verification of the material and his certificate in the bill in question having direct concern with this inquiry was completely omitted by the Enquiry Officer. Moreover, the Inquiry Officer has not allowed Sri.P.R.Kumar to bear testimony to or examine him as witness even though he has been summoned before the Inquiry Officer at Bangalore in this regard. This has resulted in violation of principles of natural justice. G. If the Senior Liaison Officer, Sr.P.R.Kumar has signed the cheque to facilitate the required purchase on 30.9.1998, as claimed by the presenting officer, the Senior Laison Officer should have verified the stock book of the Society. it must be noted that the Senior Laision Officer himself has given his consent to purchase the material for which sanction has been obtained from the Joint Director (Extn.) Kalpetta vide Lr.No. EW/KT/98-99/264 dtd.27/28.7.1998. Therefore the regular SLO Sri.P.R.Kumar should have been invariably heard before arriving at a conclusion.” 3. By Ext.P3 order passed on 31.7.2001, the appeal was partly allowed, reducing the punishment to reduction of pay by three stages in the time scale of pay for a period of two years from the date on which the punishment became effective. It was also directed that the petitioner will not earn increments during the period of reduction and that on the expiry of the said period, the reduction will not have the effect of postponing his future increments. O.P.25118/2001 4 4. I have heard Sri.K.Jaju Babu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Though the writ petition was admitted on 22/8/2001 and the respondents have entered appearance, till date they have not filed a counter affidavit. Today when the case was called on for hearing, there was also no representation on behalf of the respondents. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority have failed to take note of the significant fact that the enquiry officer did not permit the petitioner to examine the Senior Laision Officer as a witness, though he was named in the list of witness filed by the petitioner and had been called to the Head Office at Bangalore for being examined in the enquiry. The learned counsel submitted that the failure of the enquiry officer to permit the petitioner to examine the Senior Laision Officer as a witness on his side has resulted in serious prejudice. The learned counsel further submitted that though this contention was highlighted in the appeal memorandum, the appellate authority did not bestow attention to it and has without application of mind, passed Ext.P3 order reducing the penalty. The learned counsel, relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Ramchander v Union of India (AIR 1986 SC 1173) contended that the consideration of the appeal by appellate authority has to be objective after due application of mind and that the appellate authority is also bound to give reasons for its O.P.25118/2001 5 decision. 5. In the instant case, the appellate authority has in paragraphs 1 to 5 of Ext.P3 dealt with the circumstances in which the appeal happened to be filed. The discussion in paragraphs 6 and 7 of Ext.P3 is general in nature. A reading of Ext.P3 clearly indicates that the various contentions set out by the petitioner in Ext.P2 memorandum of appeal, especially his grievance regarding the denial of permission to examine a material witness, do not appear to have been considered or adverted to by the appellate authority. A reading of Ext.P3 would indicate that the appellate authority considered only the quantum of punishment and that there has not been a fair consideration of the appeal filed by the petitioner with reference to his contentions and the materials gathered in the enquiry. Ext.P3 also indicates that the appellate authority has acted mechanically and without applying its mind to relevant and material aspects. As held by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision, the order passed by the appellate authority should indicate that it had applied his mind to the relevant aspects and that the points raised have been objectively considered. Further, no reasons are stated in Ext.P3 to reject the contentions raised by the petitioner in Ext.P2 appeal. I therefore hold that the appeal filed by the petitioner has not been properly considered and disposed of by the Appellate Authority. O.P.25118/2001 6 Ext.P3 is therefore quashed and the third respondent is directed to reconsider Ext.P2 appeal filed by the petitioner afresh and pass an order on the merits, dealing with the contentions raised by the petitioner in Ext.P2 appeal. This shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner will be at liberty to challenge the order passed by the appellate authority, if he is aggrieved by it, in other appropriate proceedings. The Original Petition is allowed as above. No costs. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE css/ O.P.25118/2001 7 P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. O.P.No.25118 of 2001 judgment 30.07.2008