IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2009 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 28307 of 2009(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. JOSEPH THOMAS, KARINGADA,S/O.K.T.JOSEPH,KARINGADA HOUSE, VATTAPPALLY,CHANGANASSERY,KOTTAYAM. (RETD.DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM). 2. R.JANARDHANAN NAIR, S/O.M.K.RAGHAVAN PILLA,KASTHUBHOM, S.N.JUNCTION,TRIPUNITHURA. (RETD.DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,ERNAKULAM). 3. K.BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, S/O.K.P.SIVASANKARA PILLAI,PANACHAMOOTTIL HOUSE, MANORAMATHOPU, ERAYIL KADAVU, KOTTAYAM. (RETD.SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,PH CIRCLE, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,KOTTAYAM). 4. P.P.SREEDHARAN,S/O.P.K.PADMANABHAN, VIPANCHIKA, S.N.JUNCTION, TRIPUNITHURA. (RETD.DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM). 5. THOMAS CHERIAN,S/O.M.V.CHERIAN, KAKKANATTU HOUSE,THUKALASSERY,THIRUVALLA. (RETD.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,THIRUVALLA). BY ADV. SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND SMT.M.P.MARY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. WPC NO.28307/2009 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,OFFICE OF THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,JALA BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. MS.ANU SIVARAMAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.C.UNNIKRISHNAN, SC FOR KWA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/11/2009, ALONG WITH WP(C) NO.29495/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------ WP(C) Nos.28307 & 29495 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated, this the 2nd day of November, 2009 ------------------------------ J U D G M E N T While the petitioners in WP(C) No.28307/2009 are retired employees of the Kerala Water Authority, the petitioners in WP(C) No.29495/2009 are still in service of the Authority. 2. In these writ petitions, the challenge is against Ext.P6 series of orders dated 14/08/2009 passed by the Managing Director of the Kerala Water Authority calling upon the petitioners to remit the liability fixed against them, in connection with the work to RWSS, Thelliyoor - Valakuzhy - Ezhumatoor. 3. Although, several contentions have been raised by the petitioners, a reading of the impugned orders would show that the disciplinary authority has placed considerable reliance on the technical enquiry report submitted by the Deputy Chief Engineer (Vigilance), submitted in January, 2009. It is the case of the petitioners that this report was not disclosed to them. When this submission was made on the previous occasion, the case was WP(C) Nos.28307 & 29495/2009 -2- adjourned with a direction to the learned standing counsel to obtain instructions in the matter. The learned standing counsel, on instructions, submits that the liability as apportioned in the technical enquiry report alone was communicated to the petitioners. He also accepts that the contents of the report as a whole, was not disclosed to the petitioners, and that a copy of the report was not furnished to them. 4. It is one of the settled principles of natural justice that, if a material is sought to be used against a person, a copy of the material, or atleast the contents thereof, shall be made known to the person affected, so that he can offer his explanation and defend the proceedings effectively. In this case, admittedly, both these requirements have not been complied with, and therefore, Ext.P6 series of orders rendered by the Managing Director of the Water Authority dated 14/08/2009 is violative of the principles of natural justice, and for that reason itself these orders deserve to be invalidated. 5. Therefore, I set aside Ext.P6 series of orders dated 14/8/2009 referred to above. The 2nd respondent shall, furnish a WP(C) Nos.28307 & 29495/2009 -3- copy of the technical enquiry report submitted by the Deputy Chief Engineer (Vigilance) to the petitioners, allow them to submit their representations against the report, and after giving them an opportunity of hearing, pass fresh orders in the matter. It is made clear that the contentions raised by both sides on the merits of the controversy are left open. These writ petitions are disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg