IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2009 / 19TH ASHADHA 1931 WA.No. 1291 of 2007() AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP.25660/1999 Dated 10/01/2007 APPELLANTS: RESPONDENTS 1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, TRIVANDRUM 2. PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, FOREST HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHAKAD, TRIVANDRUM 3. SRI.N.V.TRIVEDI BABU, CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS TRIVANDRUM BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. R. BINDU RESPONDENT: PETITIONER G.R.MOHANDAS, FOREST RANGE OFFICER DEVIKULAM.P.O., MUNNAR (VIA) BY ADV. SRI.M.R.RAJENDRAN NAIR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI.M.R.SUDHEENDRAN FOR R1 SRI.M.R.HARIRAJ FOR R1 SMT.REKHA VASUDEVAN FOR R1 SMT.VINEETHA B. FOR R1 SRI.SURAJ.S FOR R1 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------- W.A. NO. 1291 OF 2007 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The respondents in the Original Petition are the appellants. The Original Petition was filed by the respondent herein. The petitioner was a Forest Range Officer. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by serving Ext.P1 charge memo. It contained six charges. The petitioner filed his reply. Finding that his explanation was not satisfactory, the Government appointed an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges levelled against him. The Enquiry Officer submitted Ext.P3 report, finding the petitioner guilty of charge Nos. 2 and 6. It was also reported that charge No.1 was partly proved. The petitioner submitted Ext.P4 detailed objection to the adverse findings against him in the enquiry report. The Government considered the matter and rejected the same and by Ext.P5 order imposed a punishment of reduction in rank on the respondent. Feeling aggrieved by Ext.P5, the Original Petition was filed. W.A. NO. 1291/2007 2 2. The petitioner raised several contentions. One of them was a technical contention that the Government, being the Appellate Authority, should not have acted as the Disciplinary Authority. As a result, it is submitted, the petitioner lost a chance of filing an appeal. The learned Single Judge accepted that contention and set aside the order of penalty. Feeling aggrieved by the said decision, this Writ Appeal is filed. 3. The appellants pointed out that the respondent, a Forest Range Officer, was charge sheeted along with another officer in the rank of Assistant Conservator of Forests. The enquiry against them were held jointly. The Government is the appointing authority of Assistant Conservator of Forests. Therefore, in the joint proceedings, the Government alone could have acted as the Disciplinary Authority. In view of the said position, the finding of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained, it is submitted. 4. We heard the learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner on this point. It is the common ground that disciplinary action was taken against the respondent jointly with another officer in the rank of Assistant W.A. NO. 1291/2007 3 Conservator of Forests. It is also not in dispute that the appointing authority of Assistant Conservator of Forests is the Government. Therefore, we find nothing wrong with the Government acting as the Disciplinary Authority in this case. So, the finding of the learned Single Judge on this point is liable to be set aside and we do so. 5. Now, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent has got a case on merits. According to the respondent, his detailed objections were not satisfactorily dealt with in Ext.P5 order. Learned counsel took us through the said order. We find that the explanation offered by the petitioner was dealt with only briefly, in a few sentences. We feel that the Government should have considered the objections of the petitioner more objectively and should have given reasons fore rejecting the same. But, we notice that the petitioner can seek review of that order before the Government under Rule 35 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”). If the respondent/petitioner files a Review Petition under Rule 35 of the Rules within six weeks from today, the Government shall consider and dispose of the same by a speaking order, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, within W.A. NO. 1291/2007 4 four months from the date of receipt of the Review Petition. In the result, we set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and dismiss the Original Petition. The Writ Appeal is disposed of as above. (K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE sp/ W.A. NO. 1291/2007 5 K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. W.A. NO.1291/2007 JUDGMENT 10th July, 2009 W.A. NO. 1291/2007 6