IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2008 / 14TH ASWINA 1930 OP.No. 19423 of 2000(K) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SMT. JAILA. A, LADY VILLAGE EXTENSION OFFICER GR. I, BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, ALATHOOR, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.N.SUKUMARAN SRI.S.SHYAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONERATE OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, LMS COMPOUND, TRIVANDRUM. 3. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.R. SABU. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: O.P.NO. 19423/2000. ---------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT. 9-12-1999. EXT.P2 APPEAL DT. 21-2-2000. EXT.P3 ORDER DT. 1-6-2000. EXT.P4 MEMO DT. 27-10-1997. EXT.P5 EXPLANATION DT. 9-1-1998. EXT.P6 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DT. 5-8-1999 AND ENQUIRY DT. 9-2-1999. EXT.P7 OBJECTION DT. 23-8-1999. EXT.P8 CONVERING LETTER DT. 18-11-1993. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P. No. 19423 of 2000 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 6th October, 2008. J U D G M E N T The the petitioner, while working as Lady Village Extension Officer Grade I, was proceed against in disciplinary proceedings by issuing Ext. P4 charge memo. The petitioner filed Ext. P5 explanation denying the charges. On the basis of Ext. P6 minutes of enquiry stated to be under Rule 15 of the Kerala Civil Service (CC & A) Rules, 1960, the petitioner has been imposed with the punishment of reversion to Grade II by Ext. P1 order. Petitioner's appeal, Ext. P2, has been dismissed by Ext. P3. The petitioner is challenging Exts. P1 and P3 orders in this original petition. 2. The main ground raised by the petitioner against the punishment is that no enquiry worth the name has been conducted by the enquiry officer. According to the petitioner, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked, although very serious charges have been raised against the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner has manipulated records to give undue benefit to undeserving persons in respect of IRDP assistance in the Block where the petitioner was working during 1993-94. The petitioner, therefore, submits that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is violative of the principles of natural justice in so far as the procedure prescribed under Rule 15 of the Kerala Civil Service (CC & A) Rules, 1960, for imposing a major punishment has not been complied with in this case. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader. 4. Although a statement has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent in this case, the learned Government Pleader could not satisfy me that in the enquiry, any witness has been examined or any document has been marked. On a reading of Ext. P6 also, there is no indication as to having examined any witnesses or having marked any O.P. No. 19423/2000. -: 2 :- documents, even though, apparently, the enquiry officer has relied upon certain documents in the preliminary enquiry. If in the final enquiry, those documents had to be relied upon, natural justice requires that the enquiry officer ought to have put the petitioner on notice regarding those documents with an opportunity to the petitioner to controvert those documents. Apparently, such a procedure has not been adopted by the enquiry officer. In fact, in Ext. P6 itself, the enquiry officer himself has stated thus in paragraph 21: “Neither the Government nor the accused officer produced any witnesses to be examined before me. The accused officer has been specifically asked whether she wishes to have witnesses examined by the enquiry officer. She has replied in the negative. Hence no witnesses from either side have been examined. No additional documents other than those already seized and handed over to me have also been produced before me from both sides.” The same itself goes to show that no witnesses have been produced and no documents have been marked in the case and the enquiry officer had relied on documents which have not been put to the petitioner. That being so, Ext. P1 order of punishment based on such an invalid enquiry is clearly unsustainable. Accordingly, Ext. P1 is quashed. Consequently, Ext. P3 is also quashed. Learned Government Pleader seeks permission to conduct a de novo enquiry and to take further proceedings in the matter. I am not expressing any opinion on the same. The original petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/