IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2009 / 23RD POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 35418 of 2004(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.S.VIJAYAN PILLAI, S/O.SANKARA PILLAI, AGED 51 YEARS, NOW WORKING AS JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT, O/O.THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(L.A), THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI SRI.SUDHEESH.A. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PAINAVU, IDUKKI. 2. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, O/O. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -1. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, THODUPUZHA. 5. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R.), THODUPUZHA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 TO 5 SMT.LAKSHMI RANI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/01/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 35418 of 2004 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF SUSPENSION DATED 22.1.01 EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 28.1.01 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF MEMO OF CHARGES DATED 2.4.01 GIVEN TO THE PETITIONER EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 4.5.01 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE EXT.P3 EXT.P5- TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 3.8.00 EXT.P6- TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 6.9.00 EXT.P7- TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 9.11.00 EXT.P8- TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 2.8.01 EXT.P9- TRUE COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P10- TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMISSION IN O.S.405/2001 FILED BEFORE THE MUNISIFF'S COURT, THODUPUZHA EXT.P11- TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF FACTS GIVEN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE DISTRICT GOVERNMENT PLEADER EXT.P12- TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 2.1.03 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE EXT.P13- TRUE COPY OF REVISION MEMORANDUM FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 17.2.2003 EXT.P14- TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 20.12.03 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER EXT.P15- TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.GO(Rt) NO.3314/04/RD DATED 7.9.04 EXT.P16- TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 28.10.00 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO 4TH RESPONDENT EXT.P17- TRUE COPY OF 4TH RESPONDENT LETTER DATED 29.11.00 EXT.P18- TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 15.12.00 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXT.P19- TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF INJUNCTION DATED 21.12.00 IN I.A.2198/00 IN O.S.405/00 FILED BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, THODUPUZHA. WP(C).No. 35418 of 2004 -2- EXT.P20- TRUE COPY OF REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER OT THE TAHSILDAR DATED 6.7.01 EXT.P21- TRUE COPY OF REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER TO THE TAHSILDAR DATED 10.5.02 EXT.P22- TRUE COPY OF REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER TO THE TAHSILDAR DATED 22.8.07 EXT.P23- TRUE COPY OF REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE CHARGE OFFICER TO THE TAHSILDAR DATED 22.8.07 EXT.P24- TRUE COPY OF REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE TAHSILDAR TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 11.7.01 EXT.P25- TRUE COPY OF REPORT SUBMITTED BY the TAHSILDAR TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 5.1.2002 EXT.P26- TRUE COPY OF REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE TAHSILDAR TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 22.5.02 EXT.P27- TRUE COPY OF REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE TAHSILDAR TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 15.1.03 EXT.P28- TRUE COPY OF REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE TAHSILDAR TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 27.3.03 EXT.P29- TRUE COPY OF REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE TAHSILDAR TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 29.12.04 (TRUE COPY) P.A TO JUDGE V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).35418/2004 -------------------- Dated this the 13th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner, while working as Village Officer in the Karimannoor Village, was placed under suspension as per Ext.P1, on the allegation that he did not take steps against the defaulter under the Revenue Recovery Act in time, in spite of the direction issued in that behalf, by the District Collector. He was proceeded against in disciplinary proceedings. He submitted his objections to the show cause notice and memo of charges affirming that he had sought to serve the demand notice on the defaulter immediately on receipt of the revenue recovery certificate from the District Collector forwarded by the Tahsildar. But, it so happened that the defaulter had approached the Civil Court and an order of injunction was also passed. Owner of the property had approached the Civil Court. His explanation was not accepted. But according to the respondent, an enquiry had been conducted. Petitioner submits that he had no notice of the enquiry W.P.(C).35418/2004 2 nor was he served with a copy of the enquiry report. But, ultimately Ext.P8 order was passed imposing a punishment of barring of one increment without cumulative effect. This was affirmed in Exts.P12 and P15 orders and the same are challenged in this writ petition. 2. It may be noted in this context that the petitioner retired from service in March 2008. Specific contention taken by the petitioner that a copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to him and he was therefore, deprived of an opportunity to represent against the same, has not been controverted. In fact, the said contention was practically admitted, when the respondents say that since the punishment imposed is a minor penalty and that copy of the report need not be supplied to the petitioner. 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. W.P.(C).35418/2004 3 4. As noted above, copy of the enquiry report has not been served on the petitioner. Contention in this behalf has not been denied. Petitioner has taken up a contention that no enquiry was conducted to his knowledge. It is true that an enquiry need not be conducted for imposing a minor punishment. That is different from saying that though enquiry was conducted, nevertheless it is not necessary to serve a copy of the enquiry report on the petitioner. 5. In my view, there has been, therefore, a violation of the principles of natural justice. Punishment has been imposed on the petitioner on the basis of the alleged enquiry report without giving him a copy of the same. This vitiates the order of imposing punishment on the petitioner. 6. In normal circumstances, this Court would have, on finding violation of natural justice, set aside the order in question giving liberty to the respondents to proceed from the stage of supply of enquiry report to the W.P.(C).35418/2004 4 petitioner. I refrain from giving any such opportunity in favour of the respondents in the present case, essentially for the reason that the petitioner had retired from service. Moreover, a copy of enquiry report has not been placed before this Court by the respondents even in the writ petition. Taking note of the fact that even the respondents had not decided to impose any major punishment on the petitioner and further taking note of the fact that the petitioner had retired from service in March 2008, I do not think it will be fair to reserve any liberty in favour of the respondents to proceed afresh from the stage of supply of a copy of the enquiry report. For all these reasons writ petition is allowed. Exts.P8, P12 and P15 are quashed. Petitioner will be entitled to consequential benefits. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs