IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 27812 of 2010(B) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- P.SUKUMARAN, FORESTER, WALAYAR FOREST RANGE, PALAKKAD. BY ADVS. SRI.AUGUSTINE JOSEPH, SRI.K.S.ROCKEY. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, FORESTS & WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, FOREST HEAD QUARTERS,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, FOREST CIRCLE, OLAVAKOD, PALAKKAD. 4. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, PALAKKAD FOREST DIVISION, PALAKKAD. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P. NANDAKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.27812/2010-B: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 07/01/1998 OF THE R.4. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 03/07/1998 IN C.C. NO. 269/1996 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-III, PALAKKAD. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 12/05/2000 OF THE R.3. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 15/06/2001 OF THE R.2. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 07/07/2001 FROM THE R.3. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 27/06/2008 PENDING BEFORE THE R.3. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 27812 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T While working as a Forest Guard in the Forest Department of the Government of Kerala, the petitioner was suspended from service pending disciplinary proceedings by order dated 21.03.1996. A charge memo was issued on 26.06.1996 and an enquiry was conducted. The same ended in an order imposing on him the punishment of withholding of two annual increments and treating the suspension period as leave. In the criminal case on the same set of facts the petitioner was acquitted. The petitioner challenged the punishment of withholding of increments in an appeal on the ground that the enquiry is vitiated for non- compliance with the procedure prescribed. By Ext.P4 order, the 2nd respondent allowed the appeal and quashed the order of punishment on the ground of defect in the W.P.(C)No. 27812 of 2010 -2- enquiry, directing a denovo enquiry. That order was passed on 15.06.2001. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that even now the denovo enquiry has not even begun. It is under the above circumstances the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “i) call for the records relating to Exhibit P-5; ii) issue a writ of certiorari to quash Exhibit P-5; iii) issue a writ of mandamus to the 3rd respondent to give all consequential benefits with interest since the barring of two annual increments and the suspension period based on Exhibit.P1 has been quashed by the 2nd respondent by Exhibit.P3” 2. The petitioner's contention is that, if the denovo enquiry is conducted now after 14 years, the petitioner would not be in a position to defend himself properly in view of the passage of time and therefore the petitioner is seriously prejudiced. 3. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. The question as to whether the delay in conducting the enquiry in a disciplinary action vitiates the disciplinary proceedings itself has been subject matter of decisions of both this court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several W.P.(C)No. 27812 of 2010 -3- decisions. Some of them are, State of Punjab & Others Versus Prem Sarup (CDJ 2008 SC 1677), P.V. Mahadevan versus M.D., Tamil Nadu Housing Board (CDJ 2005 SC 592), Punjab National Bank, Human Resources Department and Others v. K. Prabhakaran [2010 (1) KHC 704 (DB)], Mahadevan v. Tamil Nadu Housing Board [2005 (4) KLT SN 22 (Case No.27) & Thomas v. K.S.E.B [2008 (3) KLT 895]. In those decisions it was held that such delay would vitiate the proceedings as the same would cause serious prejudice to the delinquent in defending himself. 4. The long delay in completing the disciplinary proceedings would certainly prejudice the delinquent insofar as by that time the documents in support of his contentions may not be available and the witnesses also may not be available. In this case, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated as early as in 1996. Fourteen years have elapsed. The petitioner is due to retire from service on 31.3.2011. As such, I am of opinion that, following the above decisions the disciplinary proceedings W.P.(C)No. 27812 of 2010 -4- are to be quashed. Accordingly the disciplinary proceedings are quashed and the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE shg/