IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2010 / 28TH POUSHA 1931 WA.No. 123 of 2005() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.6259/2002 Dated 26/10/2004 .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------- C.N.KUNJUKUNJU, CHELLIPARAMBIL, KUMARAKOM NORTH, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FORESTS & WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVASIS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.123 of 2005 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 18th January, 2010. J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioner is the appellant. He was a Forest Guard working under the respondents. While so, he was suspended from service along with others, on 21.7.1987. Later, the appellant was reinstated in service in 1989, without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings. Finally, the disciplinary authority, the Chief Conservator of Forests, imposed a punishment of barring of three increments with cumulative effect on the appellant, and also ordered recovery of Rs.7,403/- from the appellant. The appellant did not appeal against that order of the disciplinary authority. The others involved in the said disciplinary proceedings appealed, and the Government ordered that the recovery of the loss need be made, only from the Forest Range Officer. The said order was passed by the Government on 13.11.1995. The appellant also got the benefit of that order. Therefore, the punishment that remained was barring of three increments, with cumulative effect. Later, the Chief Conservator of Forests ordered to regularize the period of suspension, by ordering that the period of suspension will be treated as duty with 80% salary. It was also ordered that the said period will not be WA NO.123/05 2 counted for the purpose of grant of earned leave. The said order was challenged before the Government, in appeal. But, the Government dismissed the appeal by Ext.P1 order dated 20.5.2000. Challenging Ext.P1, the writ petition was filed. 2. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this appeal. 3. We notice that the original order of punishment was not challenged by the appellant, and the same has become final, as against him, as early as in 1992. The present order was concerning the regularization of the suspension period. Since a punishment was imposed on the appellant, the Government could have ordered to treat the suspension period as such, but the Government have taken a very liberal view, and ordered to pay 80% wages. Taking into account the facts of this case and the finality attained to the punishment, the said order of the Government cannot be said to be arbitrary, perverse or irrational. A plausible view has been taken, which is favourable to the appellant, by the Chief Conservator of Forests. The same has been affirmed by the Government also. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the same. But, in the appeal WA NO.123/05 3 memorandum, we find that the main ground taken was that the appeal was disposed of by the Government, without affording the appellant an opportunity of being heard. Now, it is well-settled that while disposing of these type of departmental appeals, hearing by words of mouth is not mandatory. If the Appellate Authority has considered the contentions raised in the appeal memorandum fairly and objectively, and a speaking order is passed, the said order cannot be impugned, on the ground that the appellant was not heard in person. In this case, the appeal memorandum is not produced. Therefore, we are not able to review the appellate order, to find out whether it was passed, taking into account the contentions of the appellant. So, the said ground also fails. In the result, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. tgs K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.123 of 2005 ---------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T Dated 18th January, 2010.