IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2011 / 9TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 21080 of 2003(H) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ A.M.ISMAIL, DRIVER, OFFICER OF THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAX,DEVIKULAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.P.REGHURAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO THE VIGILANCE(A) DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT,TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE VIGILANCE TRIBUNAL, TRIVANDRUM BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.N.SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.21080/2003 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1(A) COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO NO.2208/A2/2000/VIG. DATED 16/2/2000 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT. P1(B) COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH EXT.P1(A). P2 COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 1/1/2001 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. P3 COPY OF THE G.O.(MS)NO.72/2001/VIG. DATED 26/11/2001 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT. P4 COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION DATED 16/7/2002 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. P5 COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)NO.182/2002/VIG. DATED 29/8/2002 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts WP(C)NO.21080/2003 ORDER ON I.A.NO.8007/2003 IN WP(C)NO.21080/2003 DISMISSED 30/06/2011 SD/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 21080 OF 2003 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P3 and P5 orders. 2. The petitioner was working as a driver in the office of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Department of Commercial Taxes, Devikulam, Idukki District. On 16.6.2000, Ext.P1, memo of charges along with statement of allegations was issued to the petitioner alleging various acts of misconducts. To the charges, he filed Ext.P2 explanation. 3. It appears that after considering the explanation Government found that an enquiry is necessary. Accordingly the charges were referred W.P.(C) No. 21080 OF 2003 -:2:- to the Vigilance Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram for a detailed enquiry under the Kerala Civil Services (Vigilance Tribunal) Rules 1960. The Vigilance Tribunal conducted a detailed enquiry and submitted its report to the Government finding the petitioner guilty of the charges. Government accepted the findings and the recommendations to impose punishment of withholding of five increments permanently. Accordingly Ext.P3 order was issued, imposing punishment. 4. Petitioner filed Ext.P4 application to review the said punishment, invoking the power of the Government under Rule 35 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules. The review petition was also rejected by Ext.P5 order. It is in this back ground the writ petition is filed. 5. The contention raised by the petitioner is that the punishment imposed was without serving W.P.(C) No. 21080 OF 2003 -:3:- copy of the enquiry report and therefore it is violative of the principles of natural justice. However, this plea of the petitioner which was raised in Ext.P4 application was considered and rejected by the Government on the basis that at the time when Ext.P3 order was passed on 26.11.2001, the punishment of barring the increments was only a minor punishment which could have been imposed even without an enquiry. The petitioner has no case that at the relevant time the punishment was a major punishment. If that be so, there is nothing illegal in the impugned order under challenge. 6. That apart, the fact that principles of natural justice have been violated, by itself, will not invalidate a disciplinary action, unless the aggrieved party is able to satisfy the court that prejudice has been caused to him. This W.P.(C) No. 21080 OF 2003 -:4:- principle has been upheld by the Apex court in various judgments including the decision reported in Gramin Bank v. Manoj Kumar Sinha (AIR 2010 S.C. 2491). Prejudice is a question of fact which should be pleaded and established by the petitioner. In this writ petition there is absolutely no plea on this aspect. Therefore on that ground also the contention raised by petitioner cannot be accepted. In the result, the writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/- [true copy] P.S. to Judge W.P.(C) No. 21080 OF 2003 -:5:- ANTONY DOMINIC, J. *********************** W.P.(C) No. 21080 OF 2003 *********************** J U D G M E N T 30th June, 2011.