IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 19TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 1205 of 2008(R) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ S.KALADHARAN, HOUSE NO.76, SREESAILAM, N.C.C.NAGAR, PEROORKADA P.O., TRIVANDRUM ASSISTANT SECRETARY, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, DIVISION NO.1, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT: ------------- KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, TRIVANDRUM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY SRI. POOVAPPALLY M.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 1205 of 2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.HBO.1026/99/VIG.DATED 26.11.99 EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.HBO-175/AD3(a) 2001/Vig DATED 19.3.2001 EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.HBO.211801/AD3(a)/99/Gig DATED.1.2.02 EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.A.106 OF 2002 DATED 9.2.07 EXT.P5- TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES NO.CW-21189/AD3(a) 99/Vig DATED 23.3.07 EXT.P6- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION 27.4.07 EXT.P7- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.522/A1/2006/HSG.DATED 9.5.2007 EXT.P8- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.HBO.331/AD1 (a)/7516/07 DATED 16.5.2007 EXT.P9- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.522/A1/2006/HSG.DATED 26.9.07 EXT.P10- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 31.12.2007 EXT.P11- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.EA-1/08 DATED 2.1.08 (TRUE COPY) P.A TO JUDGE V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C). 1205/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 8th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is presently working as Assistant Secretary in the Kerala State Housing Board. He is due to retire on 29.2.2008. 2. He submits that he initially joined service of the respondent as L.D.Clerk in March 1981. Thereafter, he was promoted as U.D.Clerk, Junior Superintendent, Senior Superintendent, Administrative Officer and Assistant Secretary. 3. While working as Assistant Secretary at Kollam, he was suspended, as evidenced by Ext.P1 order, on 23.11.1999, on the allegation that he had accepted bribe of Rs.500/- from the loanee. Vigilance case was registered against the petitioner and pending trial before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, he was reinstated in service. W.P.(C).1205/2008 2 4. The trial Court convicted him for the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of four years and also to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-. Petitioner preferred an appeal before this Court as Crl.A.106/2002 which vide Ext.P4 judgment dated 9.2.2007 ended in an acquittal. 5. Thereafter, Ext.P5 memo of charges has been issued to the petitioner alleging that the entire episode, involving the registration of case under the P.C. Act against the petitioner, leading to the conviction by the trial Court and which ultimately ended in an acquittal by this Court under Ext.P4 judgment, has marred the reputation of the Board and the Government before the public. 6. Statement of allegation seems to be an expatiation of what is contained in memo of charges. It is alleged that the acquittal of the petitioner by this Court is an W.P.(C).1205/2008 3 acquittal of blame and that the charge leveled against him still persist. 7. Reply was submitted by the petitioner as Ext.P6 on 27.4.2007 requesting that the proceedings may be dropped as the High Court has acquitted him and the charges therefore, are irrelevant, unwarranted and unsustainable. Specific reference is made to the fact that the petitioner is due to retire on 29.2.2008. Apparently, Board was not prepared to do so. Petitioner also refers to the fact that the Government is intimated that it is not intending to file an appeal against Ext.P4 judgment. Further request made by the petitioner under Ext.P10 for dropping the disciplinary action against him is also pending. In these circumstances, writ petition has been filed challenging initiation of disciplinary action as such. 8. Detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent inter alia contending that the employer W.P.(C).1205/2008 4 has the jurisdictional authority to initiate disciplinary action On facts which are involving the same transaction and had formed the subject matter of proceedings before the criminal Court and therefore, Board is entitled to proceed against the petitioner. 9. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Housing Board. 10. I agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the Board that the employer has the power to initiate disciplinary action even if the proceedings before the criminal Court arising from the same transaction as such ends in an acquittal. Charge against the petitioner is in relation to the entire episode meaning thereby the original registration of crime, conviction of the petitioner by the trial Court and ultimate acquittal by the trial Court and that the same has tarnished the image of the Board and the Government before the public. Learned counsel for the W.P.(C).1205/2008 5 petitioner contended that the memo of charges actually refers to a set of facts which will have to be considered as a narration of events, which have already taken place. Culmination of such events is the acquittal under Ext.P4 judgment. The net result of Ext.P4 is that the petitioner, who was charge sheeted for an offece under the P.C Act, was ultimately acquitted by this Court. Obviously, the petitioner cannot be blamed for the acquittal. No doubt the petitioner could have been proceeded against in disciplinary action, on charges of having demanded bribe but that is not the charge which has been levelled at him. The charge is one of having tarnished the image of the Board and the Government before the public. In doing so, reference is made to the original charge against the petitioner and conviction by the trial Court. But since this would be an incomplete narration of the events, reference is also made to Ext.P4 judgment of acquittal. If that be so, does it not make the petitioner entitled to point out that going by Ext.P4 judgment, he has been a victim of the long drawn out W.P.(C).1205/2008 6 criminal proceedings and therefore, how is that the ultimate acquittal by the Appellate Court is one of the factors which has contributed to tarnish the image of the Board and the Government before the public. 11. I have made a reference to this aspects only to bring into focus the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the charge does not answer to the requirement of Rule 15(2) of K.C.S (C.C. & A) Rules which is applicable to the employees of the Board. I am inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 12. I would normally refrain from interfering with the memo of charges and the disciplinary proceedings at this stage. I feel constrained to take note of the fact that after a long drawn out criminal proceedings which commenced in the year 1999 and ended in 2007 by an acquittal from this Court as per Ext.P4 judgment, petitioner who is due to retire on 29.2.2008, is leveled W.P.(C).1205/2008 7 with the above charge. 13. In the result, writ petition is allowed. Ext.P5 memo of charges is quashed. It is declared that the respondents are not entitled to proceed with the disciplinary action on the basis of Ext.P5. 14. But it is made clear that this shall not stand in the way of the respondent, Board, initiating disciplinary action against the petitioner on any action or inaction on the part of the petitioner constituting a misconduct including one which involves an event which was part of the transaction forming subject matter of the criminal proceedings that ultimately ended in an acquittal as per Ext.P4 judgment. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs W.P.(C).1205/2008 8