IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2011 / 3RD ASHADHA 1933 OP.No. 30009 of 2001(V) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ T.G.DIVAKARAN NAIR, VILLAGE OFFICER, CHITTAR SEETHATHODE VILLAGE OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY DR.K.P.KYLASANATHA PILLAY, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADV.SRI.M.P.SASIDHARAN NAIR SMT.SREEDEVI KYLASANATH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, BOARD OF REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 4. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVALLA. 5. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (PLR), RANNI R1, R3 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADERVCSMT.NISHA BOSE R2 BY ADV. SMT.I.SHEELA DEVI THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.48809/2001 IN O.P.NO.30009/2001 DISMISSED 24/06/2011 SD/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.A1-4008/96 DATED 27/11/1996. P2 COPY OF THE REPORT NO.A1-4008/96 DATED 24/1/1997 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P3 COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES AND STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS NO.SS 1- 29006/96 DATED 29/3/1997. P4 COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF DEFENCE DATED 22/4/97 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. P5 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 6/5/1997 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P6 COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.SS-1-29006/96 DATED 11/8/97. P7 COPY OF THE LR.NO.A1-82/97 DATED 29/8/97 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT. P8 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.SS1-29006/96 DATED 24/10/1997 OF 2ND RESPONDENT. P9 COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 22/11/97 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P10 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.LR/D3-12766/9 DATED 19/2/2000 OF 2ND RESPONDENT. P11 COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION DATED 19/4/2000 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. P12 COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)1930/01/RD DATED 27/8/2001. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P. No. 30009 of 2001-V - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of June, 2011. JUDGMENT The orders passed in a disciplinary proceedings, culminating in the final order passed by the Government as per Ext.P12 are under challenge. The punishment imposed is of barring two increments with cumulative effect. 2. The petitioner was working as a village Officer at Chittar Seethathode village Office at Pathanamthitta district. The allegation against him was that he went to the residence of one L.D. Clerk on 26.9.1996 at 11.30 p.m. and tried to manhandle the L.D. Clerk and certain other members of the family. The District Collector, after due enquiry, passed Ext.P6 order imposing punishment after hearing him. An appeal was filed which was rejected by the second respondent Land Revenue Commissioner, as per Ext.P10 order, confirming the order passed by the District Collector. Finally, the review petition was also dismissed by the Government. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the penalty imposed is a major one and therefore without conducting a full-fledged enquiry, the punishment cannot be justified. op 30009/2001 2 4. The above contention cannot be accepted in the light of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Balagopal v. State of Kerala (2000 (1) KLT 120). In paragraphs 5 and 7, the Division Bench held thus: “Rule 15 deals with procedure for imposing major penalties. R. 16 deals with procedure for imposing minor penalties. Heading of the rule is “procedure for imposing minor penalties.” Items (i) to (iv) of R.11(1) are governed by the requirements under R.16. Withholding of increments is covered by item (iii) of R.11(1). Requirement to be complied with has been done. Therefore, there is no procedural infirmity. It is to be noted that under R.23 which deals with “appeals”, an exclusion is made in respect of orders passed by Government and it is clearly provided that no appeal shall lie against an order passed by Government. As in respect of a minor penalty, no full fledged enquiry is contemplated or provided for, petitioner – appellant is not entitled for any relief.” Therefore, evidently, the punishment imposed is only a minor penalty and a full fledged enquiry is not contemplated. On the merits of the matter, all the authorities have found against the petitioner. It is found that the charges have been proved to the hilt. The appellate authority and the reviewing authority have concurred with the punishment imposed and this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, will not be justified in re- appreciating the facts and evidence, so as to consider the sufficiency of the op 30009/2001 3 punishment. All the authorities found that the punishment has been legally imposed. As the charges have been proved against the petitioner, no interference is called for. The original petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/ op 30009/2001 4 T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P. No. 30009 of 2001-V - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT 24th day of June, 2011.