IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2008 / 16TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 18769 of 2008(H) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- B. VENUGOPAL, AGED 54 YEARS S/O. BHASKARAN (LATE), FOREST RANGE OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE WORKING PLAN OFFICER, KOLLAM, RESIDING AT 'VRDINDAVANAM', AVOLI.P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DT. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JNANASEKHARAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS AND WILDLIFE, STATE SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (ADMINISTRATION), FOREST HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, TRIVANDRUM. 3. K.P. SHAJI, FOREST RANGE OFFICER, FLIYING SQUAD, MUNNAR. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. M.R. SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).18769/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 7th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner, who is working as Range Officer in the Forest Department, is aggrieved by the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him, as evidenced by Exts.P3 and P4 and Exts.P6 and P7. In so far as Exts.P3 and P4 are concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the very institution of the proceedings is unsustainable. He refers to the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Banisingh and Another (1990 [Supl]. SCC, 738), C.V.Mahadevan v. M.D, T.N.Housing Board (2005 (6) SCC 636), and Thomas C.V. v. K.S.E.B and Others (ILR (Kerala) 2008 (2) 774) in this regard. Following the dictum laid down in the aforementioned judgments, the institution of the proceedings, as evidenced by Ext.P3, is highly belated, it is contended. It is submitted that the transactions referred to in Ext.P3 are apparently relatable to the period from 1993 to 1995, whereas the memo of charges W.P.(C).18769/2008 2 is issued only on 14.3.2006. In my view, this aspect should also be considered by the disciplinary authority. 2. In so far as Exts.P6 and P7 are concerned, learned Government Pleader submits that the proceedings initiated therein shall be completed at the earliest, at any rate, within five months. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader, writ petition is disposed of in the following terms. (i). Second respondent shall ensure that the proceedings initiated under Exts.P3 and P4 are completed, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (ii). Second respondent shall specifically keep in mind the contentions, as regards the delay in the initiation of proceedings, raised by the petitioner and after looking into it, if it is found that the said contention is W.P.(C).18769/2008 3 sustainable, directions may be issued to close the proceedings on the ground that it is belated. (iii). If the petitioner wants to submit a reply to Ext.P6, he shall do so within two weeks from today. (iv). In so far as the proceedings, Exts.P6 and P7, are concerned, second respondent shall ensure that the same is completed at the earliest, at any rate, within five months from today. Proceedings initiated need not deter the second respondent from forwarding the pension papers, in accordance with law and the same shall be done, in accordance with the circulars issued by the Government. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs