IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 10TH APRIL 2008 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 24996 of 2007(S) -------------------------- OA.660/2005 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY (ADMINISTRATION), MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110011. 2. THE AMBASSADOR, INDIAN EMBASSY, RIYADH, P.O.BOX NO.94387, RIYADH - 11693, KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA. 3. THE FIRST SECRETARY (HEAD OF CHANCERY), EMBASSY OF INDIA, RIYADH - 11693, KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR BY ADV. SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM (SR) RESPONDENT: ------------- P.P.HARITH, S/O.C.N.ABOO, "SAMEES", KURUVANCHERRY ROAD, CHEVARAMBALAM, CALICUT - 673 017. BY ADV. SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN (SR.) SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.24996/07 PETITIONERS EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REJOINDER STATEMENT EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REJOINDER STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.A.NO.660/05 DATED 7.3.2007. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT SERVED TO THE RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ J.B.KOSHY & K.HEMA, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.24996 OF 2007 (S) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of April, 2008 J U D G M E N T KOSHY,J. Respondent in this writ petition was employed as Commercial Assistant and Head of Chancery of the Embassy of India at Jeddah. Five charges were levelled against him. No proper enquiry was conducted. But he was dismissed from service. He approached the Central Administrative Tribunal. The C.A.T. set aside the order of dismissal and ordered reinstatement of the employee with full back wages. Against that order, writ petition was filed before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. A Division Bench of this Court found that no proper enquiry was conducted. But instead of reinstating with full back wages, he was ordered to be kept under suspension and directed the petitioner to conduct proper enquiry. Thereafter, charge sheet containing eight charges was issued to him and he filed an explanation denying most of WPC.24996/07 2 the allegations but admitted some of the facts and allegations but according to him, it will not amount to misconduct. The respondent filed an appeal before the Honourable Supreme Court contending that order for conducting further enquiry was not correct. But the petitioner did not challenge the findings of this Court. When the matter came up before the Honourable Supreme Court, it was submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that enquiry was already conducted. Therefore, Special Leave Petition was closed. Thereafter the following order dated 12th January, 2005 was passed by the petitioner which is as follows: “In pursuance of Supreme Court Order dated 2.11.2004 regarding civil appeal No. 134-135 of 2003, this is to intimate that Shri.P.P.Harith stands dismissed from the service. The defence given by Shri.P.P.Harith, formerly local employee of the Embassy, vide his reply dated 29.4.2002 to the article of charges communicated to him vide Mission's letter No.Riy/E/579/02/85 dated 6th April, 2002, was considered by the disciplinary authority, i.e. Embassy of India, Riyadh. It was, however, concluded that the action taken by the Mission in dismissing Shri.Harith from service was just and there were no grounds, whatsoever to merit a review of Shri.Harith's dismissal. WPC.24996/07 3 The dismissal order shall remain effective from 23rd September, 1998.” The above order was passed. But it is an admitted case that no further enquiry was conducted apart from issuing charges and getting the explanation. There is no unqualified and unconditional admission of allegations raised against him in the explanation given. He has not admitted that he had committed any of the misconducts alleged against him. According to him, new charge sheet itself was illegal as earlier only five charges was issued but in the second time, it was increased to eight. In any event, absolutely no further enquiry was conducted and the submission made by the petitioner before the Supreme Court that enquiry was conducted was also not correct and it was a fraud played by the writ petitioner on the Honourable Apex Court. A tenure of the dismissal order dated 12th January 2005 shows that the authority considered the explanation as a petition for review against the earlier order and no enquiry at all was considered. Even disciplinary authority did not consider whether all or part of the 8 charges WPC.24996/07 4 levelled against him were proved or not. Entire procedure was wrong. On receipt of the above order of dismissal, again respondents approached the C.A.T and C.A.T passed the impugned order setting aside the order of dismissal. We fully agree with the findings of the C.A.T. Allegations levelled against the respondents were stated to have happened in 1998. Ten years have passed. Senior counsel for the petitioner requested to conduct fresh enquiry especially considering the explanation. When there was a clear direction by this Court to conduct an enquiry, that was not conducted and deliberately violating the order of this Court, dismissal order was issued and false submissions were made before the Supreme Court that enquiry was conducted. Passing of the dismissal order without conducting a formal enquiry despite directions of this Court shows bias against the respondent and deliberate violation of the directions of this Court. In these circumstances, no purpose will be served by ordering to conduct a fresh enquiry. We fully endorse the findings of the tribunal. There is no jurisdictional error or perverse findings by the tribunal. No grounds are made out by the petitioner to WPC.24996/07 5 invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to quash the impugned order of C.A.T. Hence we dismiss this writ petition with costs. J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE K.HEMA, JUDGE prp J.B.KOSHY & K.HEMA, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO. OF 2006 () --------------------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T --------------------------------------------------------- 4th March, 2008