IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2009 / 2ND POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 35597 of 2004(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ P. NARAYANAN, S/O. JANAKI AMMA, PATTIYIL HOUSE, ARIMBOOR P.O., THRISSUR DIST. (FOREST GUARD IN PALAPPILLY FOREST RANGE UNDER CHALAKKUDY FOREST DIVISION) BY ADV. SRI.KKM.SHERIF SRI.P.M.KUNJIMOIDEENKUTTY SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED ASHROF SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT., FOREST DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHIEF FOREST CONSERVATOR (CONSERVATION), FOREST HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. CHIEF FOREST CONSERVATOR (ADMINISTRATION) FOREST HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR FOR R1TO3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO. 35597/04 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES AND STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS DT 5.8.99. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT 14.9.99. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 14.10.99. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT 18.11.2000. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DT 17.2.2001. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 5.10.01. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DT 23.1.2002. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 1.1.2004. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 35597 OF 2004 (K) ===================== Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was a Forest Guard. He and 28 others were issued Ext.P1 memo of charges alleging that while working at the Kappathode Check Post, which is of Pariyaram Range, they allowed illegal passage of unauthorised timber collected from the forest, causing loss of Rs.14,39,469/- to the Government. It is stated that on receipt of Ext.P1, petitioner submitted Ext.P2 request for permission to peruse the documents, which was not allowed despite Ext.P3 reminder. It is stated that without perusing the documents, he had submitted his reply. Enquiry was conducted and report was submitted finding the petitioner guilty of the charges. He was not given a copy of the report, but was given only Ext.P4, an extract, along with Ext.P5 show cause notice proposing to impose punishment of barring of two increments and to recover the proportionate loss of Rs.2,849/-. Petitioner states that he sought time for filing reply and was finally issued Ext.P7 imposing a punishment of barring of two increments with cumulative effect and to recover Rs.2,849/-. He filed Ext.P8 WPC 35597/04 :2 : appeal which was rejected by Ext.P9. It is challenging the above proceedings, the writ petition is filed. 2. The first contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that on receipt of Ext.P1, despite Exts.P2 and P3, he was not allowed to peruse the documents and that in the circumstances, he was forced to submit his explanation to the memo of charges without perusing the documents that were relied on against him. As far as this plea is concerned, from the counter affidavit, what appears is that the memo of charges was served on the petitioner on 1/9/99. It is stated that he had 15 days time to file his reply. After the expiry of the said period, he submitted Ext.P2 request which reached the respondents on 20/9/99. It is stated that this was the background in which he filed his reply. As already seen, the petitioner had 15 days time to file his explanation to the memo of charges. Therefore, if he wanted to peruse the documents in order to prepare and submit his reply, he ought to have perused the documents or atleast made a request before the expiry of the 15 days allowed. 3. The counter affidavit states that not only that the petitioner did not report at the office of the respondents within WPC 35597/04 :3 : the 15 days period allowed, but also that he did not make even a request within the time allowed to submit his reply. There is no affidavit in reply to this counter affidavit. In the facts as stated above, I cannot find fault with the respondents in not having conceded to the request made by the delinquent belatedly. If so, I cannot find fault with the respondents in not having taken any action on Exts.P2 or P3 also. 4. The second ground urged is that the petitioner was not given a copy of the enquiry report. It is stated that instead of giving the enquiry report, he was given only Ext.P4, an extract of the report. It is contended that by this process, natural justice has been violated. The principles of natural justice require that a delinquent should be given copy of the enquiry report. However, violation of natural justice by itself will not result in invalidation of the proceedings. In cases where a report of domestic enquiry is not served on the delinquent, he can successfully get the proceedings invalidated only if he has pleaded and proved that prejudice has been caused on account of non supply of the enquiry report. It has been so held by the Apex Court in Haryana Financial Corporation and another v. Kailash Chandra WPC 35597/04 :4 : Ahuja [2008 (9) SCC 31}. In this case, there is no pleading, muchless any proof of any prejudice that was caused to the petitioner. 5. That apart, Ext.P4 was enclosed to Ext.P5 show cause notice. On receipt of show cause notice, Ext.P6 application was filed by the petitioner seeking time for filing reply. In Ext.P6, he has not raised any complaint about the non furnishing of the enquiry report. That apart, failure to furnish copy of the enquiry report has not been raised as a ground even in Ext.P8 appeal filed by the petitioner. In such circumstances, petitioner has miserably failed to establish that by virtue of the failure of the respondents in furnishing copy of the enquiry report, any prejudice has been caused to him. In such circumstances, this ground also did not call for any interference. 6. In the circumstances, I am not persuaded to interfere with the impugned orders. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp