IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 7TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 16TH KARTHIKA 1930 OP.No. 24050 of 2000(K) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. P. SUNIL, ASSISTANT ENGINEER (CIVIL), C.C.W., A.I.R., KOCHI. 2. M.K. VENUGOPAL, MOTOR DRIVER, C.C.W., A.I.R., KOCHI. 3. SUDHAMANI K.S. NAIR, STENOGRAPHER, C.C.W., A.I.R., KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.V.B.HARI NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (CIVIL) II, CIVIL CONSTRUCTION WING, ALL INDIA RADIO, 6TH FLOOR, SOOCHANA BHAVAN, C.G.O. COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI. 2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (CIVIL), CIVIL CONSTRUCTION WING, ALL INDIA RADIO, CHENNAI – 600 005. OP.No. 24050 of 2000 3. SRI. U. RAJU, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (CIVIL), CIVIL CONSTRUCTION WING, ALL INDIA RADIO, KOCHI. ADV. SRI.SAJEESH.K.B., ADDL.CGSC SRI.JOHN VARGHESE, ASSISTANT SG FOR RESPONDENTS SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R1 & R2 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/11/2008 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 24050 of 2000 ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.40629/2000 IN O.P.NO.24050/2000 CLOSED. 7.11.2008 SD/- S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE. APPENDIX EXT.P1: COPY OF MEMO DATED 26.7.2000 ISSUED BY THE R1 TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P2: COPY OF ORDER NO.A-45011/3/97-CW-V DATED 28.7.2000 ISSUED LT.COL. DALIP S. MANCHANDA, CE(C)-II. EXT.P3: COPY OF ORDER DATED 03.08.2000 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, TO 3RD PETITIONER. EXT.P4: COPY OF ORDER DATED 3RD/4TH AUGUST 2000 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P5: COPY OF ORDER DATED 10.8.2000 ISSUED BY D.S.K. BHAGAWAN, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (CIVIL), TO PETITIONER NO.1. EXT.P6: COPY OF ORDER DATED 10.8.2000 ISSUED BY -DO- TO 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P7: COPY OF ORDER DATED 10.8.2000 ISSUED BY -DO- TO 3RD PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS EXT.R1(a): COPY OF THE LETTER M.2(27)/99-2000/477 DTD 30.3.2000 OF R1. EXT.R1(b): COPY OF THE LETTER NO.EEC/AIR-3(6)/2000/ 2589 DTD 3.4.2000 OF THE R1. EXT.R1(c): COPY OF THE LETTER NO.EEC/CHN 2(CL)/2000-G 3305 DTD 21.6.2000 OF THE R1. EXT.R1(d): COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET FOR TRIAL DATED 18.1.2001. OP.No. 24050 of 2000 EXT.R1(e): COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.10.1999 IN OA NO.1130/1999 OF THE C.A.T. ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXT.R1(f): COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.10.1999 IN O.P.NO.26872/1999 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.R1(g): COPY OF THE TELEGRAM WITH NOTICE DT. 15.10.1998. EXT.R1(h): COPY OF THE TELEGRAM WITH NOTICE DTD 15.10.1998. EXT.R1(i): COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 8.1.99. EXT.R1(j): COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM DATED 24.11.2000. EXT.R1(k): COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, (CIVIL) DATED 12.10.2000. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ O.P.No.24050 OF 2000 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioners are working in the office of the All India Radio, Kochi. They are aggrieved by the initiation of an enquiry against them on allegations of misconducts/misbehaviour on the part of the petitioners, without complying with the procedure prescribed under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules. The petitioners' contention is that without issuing a charge memo as provided under Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules, straight away an enquiry has been ordered as is evident from Exts.P1 to P4 against the petitioners. They have also been served with Exts.P5 to P7 enquiry notices. According to the petitioners, without having been informed of the allegations of misconduct on which the enquiry is to be conducted, the petitioners cannot be expected to defend themselves in the enquiry. The petitioners therefore, seek the following reliefs: “a) call for the records leading upto Exhibits- P1 to P7 and quash the same by the issuance of a writ O.P.No.24050/2000 2 of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction; b) Declare that the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioners are vitiated by malafides and are therefore nonest in the eye of law; c) issue a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from proceeding with the enquiry now proposed to be held against the petitioners; d) issue a writ of mandamus commanding the 1 st respondent to conduct an enquiry into the actions of the 3 rd respondent and to take such further actions that he may deem necessary against the 3 rd respondent”. 2. Although a counter affidavit has been filed in this case, there is no mention therein as to issue of any charge sheet to any of the petitioners. As such the contention of the petitioners regarding non-issue of charge memo and non- compliance with Rule 14 are not controverted by the respondents. That being so, the impugned proceedings are clearly in violation of Rule 14(3) of the CCS(CCA) Rules. For that reason alone, the impugned proceedings are vitiated. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings are quashed with liberty to the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings, if they O.P.No.24050/2000 3 still wish to proceed further in the matter, after complying with the procedure prescribed in Rules 14 or 16 of CCS(CCA) Rules. The original petition is allowed as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd O.P.No.24050/2000 4