IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2009 / 1ST POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 20103 of 2005(R) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ M.KRISHNAN KUTTY, FORESTER, SOCIAL FORESTRY, TRICHUR RANGE, RESIDING AT MARATH HOUSE,THEYYOOR P.O., ERUMAPETTY (VIA), TRICHUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS.MR.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SECRETARY, FOREST DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. N.SUDHADEVI R3 BY ADV.MR. ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.20103/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES NO.B1.7002/92 DTD. 10. 8.93. ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. P2:- COPY OF THE EXPLANATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 1.11.1993. P3:- COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE ENQUIRY OFFICER DTD. 24.4.2000. P4:- COPY OF THE REPORT OF ENQUIRY PREPATED BY THE ENQUIRING AUTHORITY DTD. 28.10.2000. P5:- COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.B4/26511/96 DTD. 21.12.2000 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. P6:- COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.B4-26511/96 DTD. 8.1.02 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. P7:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B4-26511/99 DTD. 11.7.02. P8:- COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 4.9.02 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P9:- COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(SA)527/2004/FOREST DTD. 22.12.04. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss S.SIRI JAGAN,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.20103 of 2005 -------------------------- Dated this the 22nd December,2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was working as a Forest Guard in Ennakkel Station of the Karipuzha Thodu Reserve Area. On 22.9.1992, a memo of charges was served on the petitioner and other Forest Officials of the station alleging that skeletons of three elephants were found at Karipuzha Thodu Reserve Area which was not detected by the petitioner and others for which the petitioner was liable to be proceeded against. Pursuant to the same, an enquiry was conducted against various persons including the petitioner and the petitioner was found guilty of dereliction of duty. On the basis of the findings in the enquiry, by Ext.P.P7 order the punishment of recovery of proportionate loss caused to the Government to the extent of Rs.25,000/- and barring of his three annual increments with cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner. Petitioner filed Ext.P8 appeal against the punishment order before the Government, which was rejected by Ext.P9 order. The petitioner is challenging Exts.P7 and W.P ( C) No.20103 of 2005 2 P9 orders in the writ petition. In respect of the enquiry, the petitioner submits that although even before the start of the enquiry, petitioner had submitted Ext.P3 request for production of documents, the same was not ordered by the Enquiry Officer and that amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. Regarding the finding of guilt, the petitioner contends that he took charge as Forest Guard in the particular Range only on 7.2.1992 and the detection of skeletons of the elephants were on 9.7.1992. According to the petitioner, the death of the elephants were at least six months prior to the date of detection and therefore at the relevant time of death of the elephants , the petitioner was not in charge of the area in question. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the petitioner is not guilty of any dereliction of duty. Petitioner points out that if at all he is guilty, not only he but other officers of the station are jointly liable for dereliction of duty and the amounts should have been proportionately recovered from all of them. W.P ( C) No.20103 of 2005 3 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent, wherein, it has been stated that the enquiry was conducted in full compliance with the principles of natural justice. They have categorically stated that all the records requested for by the petitioner were perused by the petitioner. 3. According to the Learned Government Pleader, the Enquiry Officer considered the evidence in the enquiry and found that the petitioner and two others guilty of dereliction of duty. It is pointed out that specific reasons have been mentioned in the enquiry report for exonerating the others. She points out that as per the postmortem report, the death of the elephants occurred four months prior to the detection which was during the period when the petitioner was in charge. Therefore, according to the learned Government Pleader, the petitioner cannot be absolved from liability. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. The petitioner has made a vague allegation that documents requested for by the petitioner were not produced in the W.P ( C) No.20103 of 2005 4 enquiry. In support of the same, the petitioner has produced Ext.P3 request to the Enquiry Officer seeking production of certain files. But the petitioner was not able to satisfy me that such request was in fact given to the Enquiry Officer. Even otherwise, the petitioner has no case that at any time he has complained before the Enquiry Officer that those documents are necessary for proving his innocence and the same were not summoned by the Enquiry Officer. Petitioner has not even produced the objections to the show cause notice issued by the disciplinary authority to prove that he had complained to the disciplinary authority that documents which would have proved his innocence were not produced in the enquiry despite request made in that behalf. Of course, in the appeal memorandum he would make such an allegation. The said allegation has not been proved by the petitioner by any reliable evidence. Since the petitioner has not been able to satisfy me that such a contention was raised before the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority, I am not inclined to accept the same on face value. Therefore, I am W.P ( C) No.20103 of 2005 5 not inclined to hold that the enquiry has been conducted in violation of principles of natural justice for non-production of any document sought for by the petitioner. While considering the validity of the findings in the enquiry, I must remind myself of my jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution while dealing with challenge against disciplinary proceedings. It is settled law that in disciplinary enquiries it is not necessary to prove guilt beyond any reasonable doubt. In fact it is settled law that sufficiency of evidence itself is not a ground to interfere with the findings of fact by the Enquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, if there is some evidence. Here, on a reading of Ext.P4 enquiry report, I find that the enquiry officer has given cogent reasons as to why the petitioner was held guilty of the misconduct charged. The postmortem report suggested that the death of the elephants were four months prior to the detection. Detection was on 9.7.1992. Petitioner took charge in the range only on 7.2.1992. Therefore, he was in charge of the area on the date of W.P ( C) No.20103 of 2005 6 death. The finding is that between 7.2.1992 and 9.7.1992, until some some labourers reported detection of skeletons of elephants, petitioner had not cared to perambulate the area in question . It was also found by the enquiry officer that at the relevant time reed collection was in progress in that area. Petitioner was expected to inspect the area of reed collection at intervals. It is evident that the petitioner has not inspected the area during the reed collection. The finding was that if the petitioner had at least inspected the reed collection, he would have come to note the skeletons. Therefore, the findings that the petitioner is guilty of dereliction of duty in not detecting the death of the elephants in time is proved by evidence on record. I do not find any perversity in such finding. Regarding the absolving of others from guilt, cogent reasons have been given by the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority to absolve them from liability. In any event, their absolving does not in any way mitigate the guilt of the petitioner. W.P ( C) No.20103 of 2005 7 In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the challenge against the impugned orders. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ma W.P ( C) No.20103 of 2005 8