IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1929 OP.No. 35805 of 2001(K) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ K.V.MURALEEDHARAN, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DEVIKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP: BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.SREEKUMAR, SC FOR CBI THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP.No.58505 of 2001 in OP.No.35805 of 2001-K. DISMISSED. 20.2.2008. Sd/- T.R.Ramachandran Nair, Judge. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- P1: COPY OF MEMO OF CHARGES DTD.29.1.1996. P2: COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS. P3: COPY OF THE G.O.(P).No.1722/01/RD dtd.21/8/2001. P4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT DTD.3.10.2001. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- Nil. ( true copy ) P.A. TO JUDGE. kvs/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ========================== O.P.No.35805 of 2001-K. ========================== Dated this the 20th day of February, 2008. J U D G M E N T The challenge in the Original Petition is against Ext.P3 by which pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner the Government imposed punishment of barring three increments with cumulative effect. The petitioner has raised various grounds including that of noncompliance of the mandatory provisions of Rule 15 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1960. 2. The petitioner was issued with memo of charges and statement of allegations Exts.P1 and P2, while he was holding office as Deputy Collector (Election), Ernakulam. After the communication of the memo of charges petitioner submitted an explanation. The Government appointed an Additional Secretary as Enquiry Officer, who completed the enquiry in accordance with O.P.No.35805 of 2001-K. 2 the rules. After the completion of the enquiry the petitioner was not served with any notice proposing the penalty but he was issued with Ext.P3 whereby the punishment mentioned above was imposed on him. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire action which resulted in Ext.P3 is in violation of relevant rules of Rule 15. The punishment of withholding increment with cumulative effect is a major penalty. Therefore, it is pointed out that noncompliance of Rule 15 has vitiated the proceedings. The petitioner was not served with a copy of the enquiry report also. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of this Court in Sahadevan v. State of Kerala (1997(2) KLT 150) in support of the above proposition. The learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in Raveendranathan v. District Collector (1984 KLT 564) and also of a learned Single Judge reported in Vaijayanthi v. State of Kerala (2003(3) KLT 1055) to contend for O.P.No.35805 of 2001-K. 3 the position that after initiating proceedings for imposition of major penalty, without completing the same, minor penalty cannot be imposed. 4. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit wherein the stand taken is that the penalty imposed on the petitioner is only a minor penalty as per Rule 11 of the KCS (CC&A) Rules, 1960 and it was ordered after observing all the formalities laid down in the said Rules. Therefore, in substance, a contention raised is that there is no violation of Rule 15 in the matter of imposing penalty. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents it is also stated that the petitioner submitted a petition before the Government on 3.10.2001 requesting to cancel the Government Order imposing punishment against him. It is also stated that the same is under the active consideration of the Government and a decision in the matter will be taken soon. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no orders have been passed by the Government in the said review petition. Since the review petition O.P.No.35805 of 2001-K. 4 is pending before the Government as stated above, I feel that the matter should be considered by the Government on its merit. Therefore, there will be a direction to the respondents to consider and pass orders on the review petition filed by the petitioner in the light of the contentions raised therein and the decisions relied on here within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The Original Petition is disposed of as above. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. kvs/-