IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 12149 of 2008(U) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ K.N.CHANDRAN, PEON, OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, PIRAVOM. BY ADV. SMT.MARY BENJAMIN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF TAXES, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, VANCHIYOOR P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.12149/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 2.3.06 SUSPENDING THE PETITIONER FROM SERVICE. P2:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 23.3.06 IN WPC. NO.8727/06. P3:- COPY OF THE APPEAL DT. 24.3.06 BEFORE THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION. P4:- COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DT. 4.4.06 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. P5:- COPY OF THE REPLY DT. 18.4.06 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR. P6:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DT. 17.4.06 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P7:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. 17.4.06 OF THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION. P8:- COPY OF THE REPORT DT. 22.4.06 OF THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION. P9:- COPY OF THE ORDER N O.E1-753/05 DT. 25.10.06 OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR. P10:- COPY OF THE APPEAL DT. 24.11.06 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P11:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 3.1.08 IN WPC. NO.38092/07. P12:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF 2ND RESPONDENT DT. 12.3.08. P13:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 13.5.08 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.12149 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 18th November, 2008. J U D G M E N T Heard Smt.Mary Benjamin, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.P.Nandakumar, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is presently working as a Peon in the office of the Sub Registrar at Piravam. By Ext.P1 order dated 2.3.2006, the District Registrar (General), Ernakulam, placed him under suspension under Rule 10(1) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the “Rules” for short. The petitioner challenged the order of suspension in W.P.(C) No.8727 of 2006. While repelling the challenge to the order of suspension, this Court by Ext.P2 judgment delivered on 23.3.2006 directed that since the District Registrar (General) is involved in the case as a witness, he shall not function as the disciplinary authority. While dismissing the writ petition, this Court also noticed that the order of suspension W.P.(C) No.12149/2008 2 is appealable under Rule 22 of the Rules. The petitioner accordingly moved the Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Ernakulam, in Ext.P3 appeal. 3. While the said appeal was pending, contrary to the directions in Ext.P2 judgment, the District Registrar (General), issued Ext.P4 memo of charges dated 4.4.2006. The petitioner submitted Ext.P5 reply dated 18.4.2006. While matters stood thus, by Ext.P6 letter dated 17.4.2006, the Inspector General of Registration directed Sri.P.A.Saidu Muhammed, Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Ernakulam, to enquire into the complaint based on which the petitioner was placed under suspension and to submit a report. The Deputy Inspector General of Registration accordingly conducted an enquiry with notice to the petitioner and submitted Ext.P8 report dated 22.4.2006. The Deputy Inspector General of Registration recommended that the disciplinary proceedings may be finalised by awarding a minor punishment and also to transfer the petitioner to another office. Shortly thereafter, the District W.P.(C) No.12149/2008 3 Registrar (General), Ernakulam, who had issued Ext.P4 memo of charges passed Ext.P9 order dated 25.10.2006, imposing on the petitioner the punishment of barring of one increment without cumulative effect. He also directed that the period of suspension shall be treated as eligible leave. 4. The petitioner challenged Ext.P9 order by filing Ext.P10 appeal before the Inspector General of Registration. He thereafter filed W.P.(C) No.38092 of 2007 in this Court wherein a specific contention was raised that the District Registrar (General), Ernakulam, could not have acted as the disciplinary authority, in the light of the findings in Ext.P2 judgment. By Ext.P11 judgment delivered on 3.1.2008, this Court directed the Inspector General of Registration to consider Ext.P9 appeal and pass orders thereon, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. As directed in Ext.P11 judgment, the Inspector General of Registration heard the petitioner and passed Ext.P12 order, setting aside Ext.P9 order and appointing the Joint Inspector General of Registration as the competent authority to W.P.(C) No.12149/2008 4 take further proceedings in the disciplinary action. Ext.P12 is under challenge in this writ petition. 5. Smt.Mary Benjamin, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in the light of the observations in Ext.P2 judgment which has become final, the District Registrar (General) could not have acted as the disciplinary authority, issued Ext.P4 memo of charges and finalised the disciplinary action by passing Ext.P9 order. The learned counsel further submits that after the submission of Ext.P8 report, the Inspector General of Registration has not passed any order or framed a memo of charges or proceeded with the disciplinary action. The learned counsel also contended that Ext.P9 order was set aside on the short ground that it was passed on the basis of Ext.P4 memo of charges issued by the District Registrar and that as the District Registrar was not competent to conduct an enquiry, the order imposing punishment passed by the District Registrar pursuant to Ext.P4 memo of charges cannot be sustained. She further submits that W.P.(C) No.12149/2008 5 the appellate authority could not have, after setting aside the order, directed a de novo enquiry into Ext.P4. The learned counsel also submits that after Ext.P12 order was issued, the Inspector General of Registration issued Ext.P13 order dated 13.5.2008, setting aside Ext.P8 report and that the Inspector General of Registration could not have set aside Ext.P8 enquiry report and ordered a fresh enquiry as it was not the subject matter of the appeal. The learned counsel also submits that the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Inspector General of Registration did not arise from Ext.P8 report and therefore there was no occasion to consider its validity. In any case, without notice to the petitioner, Ext.P8 report could not have been set aside, the learned counsel submits. 6. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader submits that all that the Inspector General of Registration has directed in Ext.P12 is that the Joint Inspector General of Registration should take further proceedings in the matter and W.P.(C) No.12149/2008 6 that Ext.P12 cannot be said to be an order prejudicial to the interests of the petitioner. 7. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel on either side. It is evident from Ext.P2 judgment that the District Registrar (General) could not have acted as the disciplinary authority. Therefore, Ext.P4 memo of charges and Ext.P9 order passed by him cannot be sustained. They were rightly set aside by the Inspector General of Registration in Ext.P12 order. However, while passing Ext.P12 order, the Inspector General of Registration overlooked the significant fact that the proceedings against the petitioner had not been finalised based on Ext.P8 report. Evidently on a wrong understanding of the interim order passed by this Court in this Writ Petition, the Inspector General of Registration issued Ext.P13 order, setting aside Ext.P8 report. The interim order passed by this Court on 9.4.2008 was only to the effect that no fresh enquiry shall be conducted pursuant to Ext.P12 without the first enquiry report being set aside in accordance with the W.P.(C) No.12149/2008 7 process known to law. Reference evidently was to Ext.P8. There was however no positive direction that the first enquiry report should be set aside. The Inspector General of Registration appears to have, on an incorrect understanding of the interim order passed by this Court on 9.4.2008, issued Ext.P13 order. In my considered opinion, Ext.P13 cannot therefore be sustained. Accordingly, Ext.P13 order is quashed. The Inspector General of Registration is directed to give necessary directions to the Joint Inspector General of Registration to proceed from the stage of Ext.P8 report and to finalise the proceedings at the earliest. Final orders in this regard shall be passed in the light of the findings in Ext.P8 report, after affording the petitioner an opportunity to state her case, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE nj.