IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 27TH JUNE 2008 / 6TH ASHADHA 1930 OP.No. 12624 of 1997(C) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- J.VIJAYAN VILLAGE EXTENSION OFFICER, BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, AZHUTHAM PEERAMADU BY ADV. SRI.K.C.ELDHO RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, AZHUTHA, PEERAMADU. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR, DEVIKULAM. 4. COMMISSIONER FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 12624 of 1997(C) -2- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER 31.3.1993 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.1.1994 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ALLEGATION SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.2.1994 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5(a) - TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT DATED 21.2.1994. EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21.7.1994 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6(a) - TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER TO EXT.P6 DATED 21.7.1994. EXT.P7 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.1.1995 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P8 - TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 21.2.1995 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P9 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.10.1996 IN O.P. NO. 15519/1996. EXT.P10 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.12.1996 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. / TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE rhs P.N.RAVINDRAN, J ================== O.P .No.12624 of 1997 ================== Dated this the 27th day of June, 2008. J U D G M E N T In this Original Petition the petitioner challenges Ext.P7 and P10 orders. By Ext.P7 the punishment of barring three increments with cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner. It was also ordered that the period during which he was placed under suspension will be treated as eligible leave. On appeal filed by the petitioner, the appellate authority issued Ext.P10 order, confirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority. The said orders are under challenge in this original petition. 2. While the petitioner was working as Village Extension Officer, he was placed under suspension with effect from 31.3.1993. He was later reinstated in service on 16.1.1994,without prejudice to the continuance of the disciplinary action against him. Thereafter, Ext.P3 memo of charges dated 20.1.1994 was issued calling upon the O.P .No.12624 of 1997 2 petitioner to show cause why disciplinary proceedings should not be taken against him under the Kerala Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the “Rules” for short. The petitioner was called upon to submit his reply within 15 days from the date of receipt of Ext.P3. He was also informed that he can peruse the relevant records mentioned in the statement of allegations and take extracts therefrom. Ext.P3 was served on the petitioner on 25.1.1994. The petitioner who was desirous of perusing the records referred to in the statement of allegations submitted Ext.P5 letter dated 18.2.1994 to the District Collector, the disciplinary authority. Ext.P5(a) discloses that the original of Ext.P5 was received in the office of the District Collector on 21/2/1994. It is the case of the petitioner that no reply was received to Ext.P5 and thereupon Ext.P6 letter dated 21.7.1994 was sent by him requesting that copies of the documents sought for, may be issued. There was no reply O.P .No.12624 of 1997 3 to Ext.P6 also. There after by Ext.P7 order passed on 25.1.1995, the District Collector imposed on the petitioner, the punishment of barring three increments with cumulative effect. The District Collector also directed that the period of suspension will be treated as eligible leave. The petitioner challenged Ext.P7 by filing Ext.P8 appeal. By Ext.P10 order passed on 19.12.1996, the Commissioner for Rural Development rejected the appeal. 3. I have heard Sri.K.C.Eldho, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K. Sandesh Raja, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Ext.P7 order was passed without affording him an opportunity to peruse the documents referred to Ext.P4 and to take extracts therefrom. The learned counsel submitted that the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority did not advert to the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P5 and Ext.P6 letters and that the O.P .No.12624 of 1997 4 petitioner was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to meet the allegations levelled against before the order imposing punishment was passed. The learned Government Pleader on the other hand contended that as the petitioner did not file a written statement of defence denying the charges levelled against him, the disciplinary authority was justified in passing the order imposing punishment. 4. I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had immediately on receipt of Ext.P3 memo of charges, submitted Ext.P5 letter to the disciplinary authority requesting that he may be allowed to peruse the records described therein and to take extracts therefrom. That request was not considered and therefore Ext.P6 letter was also sent within a few months thereafter. The respondents have no case before me (no counter affidavit has been filed in the original petition) that the petitioner's request in Ext.P5 and Ext.P6 was granted. It is evident that the petitioner was not O.P .No.12624 of 1997 5 afforded an opportunity to peruse the records and to take extracts therefrom. The respondents also have no case that the disciplinary authority did not receive the originals of Ext.P5 and P6 letters. I am therefore persuaded to hold that the disciplinary authority did not afford the petitioner, a reasonable opportunity to meet the allegations levelled against him. The order passed by the disciplinary authority is therefore one in violation of the principles of natural justice. The appellate authority also did not consider the said aspect, though the petitioner had in Ext.P8 appeal highlighted the issue. 5. I therefore, quash Ext.P7 and Ext.P10 orders and direct the disciplinary authority, the 2nd respondent in the original petition to proceed afresh from the stage of Ext.P3 memo of charges. The 2nd respondent shall within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, grant the request made by the petitioner in Exts.P5 and P6 and inform the petitioner in writing of the date on which he O.P .No.12624 of 1997 6 can peruse the records and take extracts therefrom. The petitioner shall within 15 days thereafter submit his written statement of defence. The disciplinary authority shall thereafter finalise the disciplinary proceedings expeditiously. The petitioner shall also co-operate with the enquiry and shall not adopt delaying tactics. The Original petition is allowed as above. No costs. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE rhs