IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2009 / 25TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 34012 of 2008(Y) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------- MANAGER, S.N.T.T.I., NILESHWAR, PADNAKKAD POST, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KASARAGOD. 4. SHRI.P.SASI, T.S.A., S.N.T.T.I., NILESHWAR, PADNAKKAD POST, KASARAGOD. ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. FOR R4 ADV. SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON16/07/2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAMDE DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 34012 of 2008(Y) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1: PHOTOCPY OF CHARGE MEMO ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT VIDE NO.SNTTI/Mngr./ Admn/ 98-99 DATED 16/11/1998. EXHIBIT P2: PHOTOCOPY OF ADDITIONAL CHARGE MEMO ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT VIDE NO. SNTTI/Mngr./ Admn/ 98-99 DATED 21/02/2000. EXHIBIT P3: PHOTOCOPY OF CHARGE MEMO ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDETN VIDE NO.SNTTI/Mngr./ Admn/ 98-99 DATED 19/04/2000. EXHIBIT P4: PHOTOCOPY OF REPORT SENT BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER( INDIAN SYSTEMS OF MEDICINE), KASARAGOD TO THE HEADMASTER OF THE PETITIONER'S SCHOOL, VIDE NO. G-5569/99 DATED 31/09/2000. EXHIBIT P5: PHOTOCOPY OF COMMUNICATION SENT BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (INDIAN SYSTTEMS OF MEDICINE), KASARAGOD, TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P6: PHOTOCOPY OF INQUIRY REPORT NO. B3-3889/99 DATED 3/11/2000 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P7: PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT VIDE NO. SNTTI/MNGR/ ADMN/ 98-99 DATED 15/11/2000. EXHIBIT P8: PHOTOCOPY OF COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE NO. SNTTI/MNGR./ Admn/ 2000-2001 DATED 20/12/2000. EXHIBIT P9: PHOTOCOPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO. B1/7351/2000/K. Dis. DATED 2/07/2001 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P10: PHOTOCOPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO.B3/3889/2009 DATED 24/08/2001 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P11: PHOTOCOPY OF PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT VIDE NO. SNTT/MNGR/Admn/2000-2001 DATED 3/14.9.2001. EXHIBIT P12: PHOTOCOPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO. B1/17039/2001/K. DIS. DATED 20/03/2002 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P13: PHOTOCOPY OF HEARING NOTE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE NO. SNTTI/MNGR/ADMN/98-99 DATED 25/08/2008. WP(C).No. 34012 of 2008(Y) EXHIBIT P14: PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER G.O.(Rt) NO.4490/2008/G.Edn. DATED 13/10/2008 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT AND OTHERS. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT R4(a): TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 24/11/1988 FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT R4(b): TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 2/03/2000 FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT R4(c): TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 23/04/2000 FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT R4(d): TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 25/11/2000 FILED BY THE PETITIOENR BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBITR4(e): TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19/12/2000 IN WPC NO.35419/2000 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT R4(f): TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 2/03/2007 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE rhs S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... W.P(C) No. 34012 of 2008 ................................................. Dated this the 16th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner in this writ petition is the Manager of SNTTI, Nileshwar. The 4th respondent was a teacher of that institution. After a bitterly contested disciplinary proceedings, by Ext.P11 order, the petitioner Manager imposed on the 4th respondent, the punishment of “reduction to a lower rank in the seniority permanently taking rank below Smt.G.Pushpalatha T.S.A”. The 4th respondent challenged the same in appeal. That appeal was dismissed by Ext.P12 order dated 20.3.2002. On 2.3.2007, the 4th respondent filed a revision petition before the Government against Exts.P11 and P12. Despite the vehement opposition of the petitioner Manager on the ground that the revision is hopelessly belated, the Government chose to entertain the same and passed Ext.P14 order, by which while upholding the guilt of the 4th respondent in respect of the charges found against him, the punishment was reduced to one of barring of one increment with cumulative effect for a period of one year, in the place of the punishment of reduction in rank in seniority. That order is under W.P(C) No. 34012 of 2008 -2- challenge in this writ petition. 2. The contention of the 4th respondent is that he did not challenge Ext.P12 immediately because an appeal filed by him against the enquiry report submitted by the AEO on 25.11.2000 was still pending, which was never disposed of. Another contention is also taken that rule 92 does not prescribe a period of limitation for preferring revision, although in respect of other appellate remedies limitation periods are prescribed. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. The mere fact that the 4th respondent had earlier filed an appeal against the enquiry report itself even if the same is true, is not sufficient to explain the inordinate delay of five years in challenging Ext.P12. Once the punishment is upheld by the appellate authority by Ext.P12, the 4th respondent cannot simply ignore the same and take a stand that since he had filed an appeal against the enquiry report itself, he is not liable to challenge the order of punishment and the order rejecting his appeal against that punishment. Further against Ext.P11 order of punishment, the 4th respondent himself filed an appeal. If he could have waited for filing revision till the appeal against the enquiry report was disposed of, that logic should apply to Ext.P11 also. He very well knew that Ext.P11 order of punishment has to be challenged and W.P(C) No. 34012 of 2008 -3- he had challenged it and sufferred Ext.P12 order. Thereafter, he cannot take a stand that since the appeal against the enquiry report is pending he is not liable to challenge Ext.P12 order in appeal. The fact that Rule 92 does not prescribe a period of limitation, does not necessarily mean that any revision filed at any time can be entertained by the Government without considering question of delay and laches. Even where no limitation period is prescribed appeal or revision has to be filed within a reasonable time. Even if there is delay in filing the same, for entertaining the revision despite the delay, the party should explain the delay sufficiently. 5 years are not at all a reasonable period for challenging Ext.P12 by any stretch of imagination. The only explanation offerred by the petitioner is that he was waiting for the appeal against the enquiry report to be over. I have already held above that, that reason is not at all sufficient to explain the delay in challenging Ext.P12 order within a reasonable time. 5. The result of the above discussion is that the 4th respondent has not offerred any acceptable reasons for the long delay of 5 years in filing the revision petition before the Government. Without proper explanation for the delay, the Government was not justified in entertaining the revision petition. In fact in the revision petition, the Government accepted the W.P(C) No. 34012 of 2008 -4- finding of guilt and only reduced the punishment. I am of opinion that the punishment itself was imposed by the Manager after obtaining prior sanction from the DEO. The Government could not have lightly interfered with that punishment, without stating sufficient reasons for the same. In fact no reason at all is stated. It is not as if reduction in rank in seniority is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct found against the 4th respondent, which alone would justify interference with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, that too after obtaining prior sanction from the D.E.O. Therefore, on merits also I am of opinion that the Government ought not to have interfered with the punishment imposed on the 4th respondent. For all the above reasons, I am of opinion that Ext.P14 order is not sustainable. Accordingly, Ext.P14 is quashed. Resultantly Ext.P11 order of punishment imposed by the petitioner would revive. The writ petition is allowed as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs