IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2009 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 35184 of 2008(L) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- N.SUNIL KUMAR, INFORMATION OFFICER, DISTRICT INFORMATION OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SMT.P.ASHA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT., INFORMATION AND PUBLIC RELATIONS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF INFORMATION AND PUBLIC RELATIONS, SOUTH BLOCK, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.35184/2008 L APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.5951/A2/06/I&PR DTD.2/03/06 OF 2ND RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.9778/A1/06/I&PR DTD. 5/05/06 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF CHARGE MEMO NO.9778/A1/06/I&PR OF THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (INFORMATION). P4: COPY OF THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER ON 28/07/06. P5: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.9778/A1/2006/I & PR DTD. 1/09/06 OF 2ND RESPONDENT. P6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 31/10/06 OF PETITIONER TO 1ST RESPONDENT. P7: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 11/12/2006 IN WPC.NO.33024/06. P8: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.9778/A1/06/I & PR DTD. 28/01/2008 OF 1ST RESPONDENT. P9: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 4/11/08 OF PUBIC INFORMATION OFFICER ALONG WITH RELEVANT PORTION OF THE FILE NO. 9778/A1/06/I & PR. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.35184 of 2008 -------------------------------------- Dated 27th May, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard Smt.P.V.Asha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Antony Mukkath, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. Ext.P5 order passed by the Director, Information & Public Relations Departments reprimanding the petitioner and directing that the period during which he was kept under suspension shall be treated as eligible leave and Ext.P8 order passed by the Government on appeal confirming Ext.P5 are under challenge in this writ petition. While the petitioner was working as Information Officer (Circulation & Distribution) in the Directorate of Information and Public Relations, Thiruvananthapuram, “Vikasana Samanwayam” a news letter published by the Government was forwarded to him for distribution. It was mentioned in the news letter that it was printed at St.Josephs' Press, Thiruvananthapuram when as a matter of fact it was printed at B.F.M. Press, Thiruvananthapuram. Pointing out that under section 3 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, the correct name of the printer has to be published, the petitioner brought this matter to the attention of the Director. WP(C).No.35184/2008 2 3. The pleadings disclose that for that reason he was placed under suspension by Ext.P2 order dated 5.5.2006. Thereafter, Ext.P3 memo of charges dated 26.7.2006 was also served on him. It was alleged that the petitioner committed insubordination and failed to discharge his duties by pointing out a negligible error in the news letter. On receipt of Ext.P3 memo of charges, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 reply wherein it was stated that he had only pointed out the mistake in mentioning the name of the press and also the violation of section 3 of the Press and Registration of Books Act and that he had acted bonafide. The Director, thereafter passed Ext.P5 order dated 1.9.2006 reprimanding the petitioner. He also directed reinstatement of the petitioner in service and also ordered that the period of suspension will be treated as eligible leave. The petitioner was also directed to submit an application for leave. The operative portion of Ext.P5 reads as follows: “In the above circumstances, considering the whole issue on humanitarian grounds the disciplinary action initiated against Shri.N.Sunil Kumar former Information Officer (C&D), under suspension is finalised and he is reinstated back in service and posted as Information Officer (FP&E) in the Directorate of Public Relations Department with this reprimand for not to commit insubordination, dereliction of duty and raising false and cooked up allegations against his superiors in authority in future. WP(C).No.35184/2008 3 The period of suspension of Shri.N.Sunil Kumar former Information Officer (C&D) will be treated as eligible leave and he is directed to submit leave for the period from 5.5.2006 to the date of rejoining in service after suspension.” 4. Aggrieved by Ext.P5 the petitioner filed an appeal before the Government. He thereafter filed W.P.(C)No.33024 of 2006 in this Court. By Ext.P7 judgment delivered on 12.12.2006 this Court directed the Government to consider Ext.P6 appeal and pass orders thereon within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. By Ext.P8 letter dated 28.1.2008 the Government informed the petitioner that his appeal cannot be entertained. He was directed to submit an application for leave as directed in Ext.P5. Exts.P5 and P8 are under challenge in this writ petition. 5. Smt.P.V.Asha, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was punished for pointing out an illegality committed by the Directorate in the publication of the news letter and that the appellate authority had as a matter of fact found that there is no merit in the charge levelled against him. Relying on sections 3 and 12 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been punished for pointing out a patent violation of a central enactment when the news letter referred to in Ext.P5 was published. WP(C).No.35184/2008 4 The respondents have filed a counter affidavit justifying the action taken against the petitioner. The respondents, however do not dispute the fact that the name of the press was wrongly mentioned in the news letter and that the petitioner was right when he pointed out that the name of the press requires to be correctly mentioned in the news letter. 6. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. It is evident from the materials produced before me especially Ext.P9 that no loss has been caused to the Government on account of the petitioner pointing out the mistake in the official news letter published by the Government. It is also not in dispute that in view of section 3 of the Press and Registration of Books Act the name of the press that was wrongly mentioned in the news letter had to be corrected. From the materials on record, it appears that for pointing out a clear violation of law, the petitioner has been punished. As a matter of fact Ext.P9 would indicate that the petitioner did not commit any misconduct and that he had no motive or malafide intention when he pointed out the mistake regarding the name of the press in the news letter. On the materials placed before me, I am therefore persuaded to hold that the suspension of the petitioner and the disciplinary action initiated against WP(C).No.35184/2008 5 him which resulted in Ext.P5, were really not called for. The superior officer of the petitioner has taken action against him for pointing out a patent violation of law. I am therefore of the considered opinion that Exts.P5 order and Ext.P8 appellate order confirming it cannot be sustained. Further, the punishment awarded is not one contemplated in the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960. In that view I have taken, I am also persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's suspension was also wholly unnecessary and was not called for. I accordingly allow this writ petition, quash Exts.P5 and P8 and direct that the period during which the petitioner was placed under suspension shall be treated as period spent on duty for all purposes. The competent authority among the respondents shall issue consequential orders in that regard within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Payment of monetary benefits shall be made within two months thereafter. The writ petition is allowed as above. No costs. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge TKS