IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2010 / 20TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 10347 of 2009(K) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SMT.C.N.SPENOLA,VETERINARY SURGEON, KUTTICHAL VETTERINARY HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.RAJU JOSEPH. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTOR OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, VIKAS BHAVAN,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT ANIMAL HUSBANDRY OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ARAVINDKUMAR BABU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.10347/2009-K: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT ISSUED BY THE R.1. DTD. 03/01/2002. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE MEMO CHARGES DTD. 30/11/2004. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 11/02/2005. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 18/06/2007. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DTD. 10/11/2008. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE REQUEST DTD 17/01/2004 MADE BEFORE THE R.2. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE STATEMENT FOR THE DECLARATION OF COMPLETION OF PROBATION FORWARDED BY THE R.2. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE R.1. DTD. 17/01/2004. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1.A: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 20/08/2002. EXT.R1.B: COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 25/07/08 OF THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.10347 of 2009 (K) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 10th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was appointed as a Veterinary Surgeon in the Animal Husbandary Department. Her initial appointment was on provisional basis for the period from 01/10/2000 to 30/06/2001. She was selected and was advised by the Public Service Commission. On that basis, she was regularly appointed with effect from 11/01/2002. 2. While she was a provisional employee, during 2001, she had occasion to work as a Veterinary Surgeon in the Mundakkayam Veterinary Hospital, when, under the Western Ghat Development Programmes, goats each were distributed to 79 beneficiaries selected by the Grama Sabha. One of the beneficiaries to whom 3 such goats were distributed was a person called Smt.Rajamma. It is stated that subsequently Smt.Rajamma’s son reported to the petitioner that one of the goats died and wanted the petitioner to conduct postmortem in order to enable the beneficiary to claim WP(C) No.10347/2009 -2- compensation from the Insurance Company. Petitioner says that she conducted postmortem and issued certificate. 3. It would appear that subsequently, Ext.R1(a) complaint was made by Smt.Rajamma herself in 2002 alleging that no goat was given to her and that she did not make any complaint about the death of any goat. On receipt of the complaint, the 1st respondent forwarded the same to the Deputy Director of Animal Husbandary and the Deputy Director appears to have conducted an enquiry and submitted Ext.P2 report dated 26/10/2002. Ext.P2 report contains the finding that the petitioner, being the Veterinary Surgeon, distributed goats to several of the beneficiaries without personally ensuring the identity of the beneficiaries and the distribution was entirely based on identification done by a Panchayat Ward Member. On this basis, the petitioner found to have committed an irregularity. 4. It would appear that similar complaint in this respect was also received by the Director of Panchayat and on his instructions, the Deputy Director of Panchayat conducted an enquiry and that resulted in Ext.P5 report dated 18/06/2007. In that report, it is stated by the Deputy Director that Smt.Rajamma herself had denied WP(C) No.10347/2009 -3- of having made any complaint to the Chief Minister and she also affirmed of having received goats. Therefore, in Ext.P5, the Deputy Director exonerated the petitioner from the allegations that were leveled against her. 5. However, relying entirely on Ext.P2 report of the Deputy Director of Animal Husbandary, the 1st respondent issued Ext.P6 show cause dated 10/11/2008 proposing to bar one increment of the petitioner. Nothing further was done and at the same time, although the petitioner joined regular service as early as on 11/01/2002, her probation has not been declared so far. It is in these circumstances, this writ petition was filed seeking to quash Ext.P2 and to direct the respondents to declare satisfactory completion of her probation. The learned counsel further submits that even during the pendency of the writ petition, there has not been any progress in the matter. 6. According to the petitioner, she was a stranger at Mundakkayam, where the alleged irregularity occurred. It is stated that the beneficiaries were selected by the Grama Sabha and when goats were distributed, the beneficiaries were identified by a Ward Member of the Panchayat. Therefore, even if it is assumed that WP(C) No.10347/2009 -4- there occurred a mistake, it was only a bonafide mistake, and is not a mistake warranting disciplinary proceedings. That apart, it is contended that Ext.P6 show cause has been issued entirely relying on Ext.P2 report of the Deputy Director of Animal Husbandary, and totally ignoring Ext.P5 report submitted by the Deputy Director of Panchayat. It is pointed out that in Ext.P5, the complainant, at whose instance the whole proceedings have been initiated, herself has stated that she had not made any complaint, which is the very basis of the entire proceedings. In these circumstances, the learned counsel contends that Ext.P6 is illegal and to be interfere with, and that the probation of the petitioner is liable to be declared. 7. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader submits that Ext.P5 discloses an irregularity on the part of the petitioner. It is stated that when such irregularity was happened, it is always open to the respondents to initiate proceedings against the petitioner. It is therefore that they issued Ext.P6 show cause notice to the petitioner. It is further contended that since final orders on Ext.P6 have not been passed, the writ petition filed at this stage is premature and is liable to be dismissed for that reason. 8. A reading of Exts.P2 & P5 reports show that the findings WP(C) No.10347/2009 -5- in these two reports are contradictory. That apart, even if Ext.P5 report is read in its entirety, all that is stated is that without ensuring the identity of the beneficiary and purely acting upon the identification done by the Ward Member of the Panchayat, the petitioner distributed goats to the beneficiaries of the Scheme. As already seen, the petitioner was a stranger at Mundakkayam, where the irregularity is alleged to have found. If she was a stranger at that place, she cannot be faulted for having relied on the identification done by the Panchayat Ward Member, who is also a part of the Grama Sabha, which selected the beneficiaries. Therefore, even if a mistake has been committed by the petitioner in relying on the identification done by the Ward Member, that was a mistake simplicitor and will not amount to a misconduct warranting proceedings against her. That apart, Ext.P5 report is totally ignored. It shows that the complainant, at whose instance the whole proceedings have been initiated, herself has denied of having made even a complaint. She also affirmed of having received the goats. In such circumstance, I feel the proceedings against the petitioner evidenced by Ext.P6 is unwarranted. 9. True, in normal circumstances, this Court would not have WP(C) No.10347/2009 -6- entertained the challenge against Ext.P6. However, when challenging Ext.P6 this writ petition was filed, this Court admitted the writ petition, entertained the same and the 1st respondent filed its counter affidavit, and therefore, at this stage, it will not be fair and proper for this Court to reject the writ petition relegating the petitioner to pursue her remedies before the Departmental Authorities. Therefore, in my view, the petitioner is entitled to succeed and for the aforesaid reasons, Ext.P6 show cause notice will stand quashed. Since the proceedings evidenced by Ext.P6 is the reason for not declaring the probation of the petitioner, now that Ext.P6 has been quashed, it is directed that the 1st respondent shall take steps for declaring the probation of the petitioner. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg