IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2009 / 29TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 19958 of 2003(A) ------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ E.K.PRABHAKARAN, S/O. KAYI, EDAPPILLI HOUSE,POOTHOL,FORMERLY DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND ASSIGNMENT, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU ADV. SRI.M.GEORGE THOMAS RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, REVENUE (D) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM PALACE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. REKHA C. NAIR. ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC, KPSC FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PKK W.P.(C) NO. 19958/2003: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO NO. 73608/172/93/RD DT.8.11.93 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO EXT.P1 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 15.1.1994. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G.O.(RT) 1216/2001/RD DATED 25.4.2001 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G.O.(RT) 618/2003/RD DATED 5.3.2003 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBIT NIL // TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 19958 OF 2003 ------------------------------------ DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2009 JUDGMENT ----------------- The Petitioner while working as Additional District Magistrate, Thrissur ( Deputy Collector, Thrissur) was removed from service as per Ext.P3 order of the first respondent, dated 25.4.2001, pursuant to disciplinary action initiated against him, based on findings arrived at the formal inquiry conducted. The allegation was that while working as District Magistrate the petitioner had misused his power in granting orders extending area of validity of Arms licences in a number of cases, and in particular with respect to Arms licence No.893/TVP held by one Sri.V.S.Jayanandan, as per proceedings dated 18.3.1991, ignoring the fact that the Government had earlier renewed the said licence limiting area of validity to Thrissur District. It was revealed through the inquiry that, the Arm licence in question was renewed by the Government on 8.3.1990 for the period from 1.1.1990 to 31.12.1992 limiting the area of validity as Thrissur District. But while the said renewal was in force, the petitioner W.P.(C) NO. 19958 OF 2003 2 through his proceedings dated 18.3.1991, had altered the area of validity as 'Union of India'. A charge memo and statement of allegation was issued in this regard, as evidenced from Ext.P1, to which the petitioner had submitted Ext.P2 explanation. Formal inquiry under Rule 15 of KCS(CC&A) Rules 1960 was conducted. Charges levelled against the petitioner was found established, and it was provisionally decided to remove him from service. The petitioner was issued with show cause notice and he was heard in person. The decision to remove from service was confirmed through Ext.P3 order. 2. In the explanation submitted to the Charge Memo, the petitioner had clarified that even though the Government had restricted the area of validity, as per Government letter No.100331/F1/90/Home dated 16.1.1991,the District Magistrates were permitted to sanction extention of the area of validity, and it is only in view of that letter the extention was granted. But it is revealed in the inquiry that the Government letter dated 16.1.1991 had authorized the District Magistrates to extent the W.P.(C) NO. 19958 OF 2003 3 area of validity of Arms licences only in cases where the licence in respect of which the area of validity has been restricted earlier by the District Magistrates themselves. It is found that the said Government letter had not authorized the District Magistrates to extent the area of validity in cases were Government have restricted validity, while renewing such licences. 3. In the inquiry it is found that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct in altering the Government Order, inspite of the fact that the Arms Act does not provide any appeal against orders issued by the Government. Hence the charge which stood proved against the petitioner was considered as serious misconduct and he was removed from service. 4. The petitioner filed revision petition against Ext.P3 order taking with the following contentions; “ i) The alleged charge is an action of exceeding my official jurisdiction in extending the area of validity of arm licence W.P.(C) NO. 19958 OF 2003 4 ii) My action has not caused any monetary loss to Government. Iii) It had not caused any damage to the society by way of misuse of the licence. iv) Except for the period when Government restricted the jurisdiction to Thrissur District, the licence had jurisdiction to Union of India from 1981 onwards. There never was an instance of mis utilization of the licence by license. v) These being the situation, my action was technically wrong, for which I do not deserve such a cruel punishment of removal from service depriving me to the entire benefits of removal from service and throwing me and my family to virtual begging. vi) Kindly note that I was given charge memo in November, 1993 and I submitted my written reply in January, 1994. There was total W.P.(C) NO. 19958 OF 2003 5 licence for 6 years till September 2000 when just 6 months before my retirement, I was served with show cause notice for termination of service. During this period, I, due to the pendency of the disciplinary action, lost my chance for conferring to I.A.S and five year's additional service. The mental agony to me and my family suffered itself was enough punishment for me” 5. Ext.P4 is the order passed by the 1st respondent on the revision petition. In Ext.P4 it is observed as follows:- “The action of the review petitioner is illegal and grave misconduct. Moreover the review petitioner has not brought forth any new points deserving reconsideration of the case. Government therefore do not find any reason to review their earlier order and the review petition submitted by Sri. E.K.Prabhakaran is rejected”. W.P.(C) NO. 19958 OF 2003 6 6. On perusal of the findings as extracted above, it is evident that the Government have not considered request of the petitioner in its proper perspective. There is no proper advertance to the grounds raised against the decision imposing punishment of removal from service. It could not be found that the order of rejection of the revision petition is with proper application of mind. It is evident from the contentions raised in the revision petition, which is extracted above, that the petitioner was seeking indulgence of the Government in reconsidering rigorous nature of the punishment imposed. Eventhough it is not specifically stated in so many words, there is an earnest endeavor from the side of the petitioner in seeking reconsideration of gravity of the punishment imposed. The question as to whether the punishment of such a rigorous nature need to have been imposed or as to whether the punishment can be limited to any lesser nature was not seen considered while disposing of the revision petition. W.P.(C) NO. 19958 OF 2003 7 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks indulgence of this court for interfering with the extent of the punishment imposed and to order punishment of a lesser gravity. But I am afraid that it is not proper on the part of this court to interfere with the punishment imposed, and to replace the punishment with its own decision, because the revisional authority had not at all considered the said aspect. On the other hand it is for the Government to consider such request taking note of all the aspects of the matter, including the fact that the petitioner had only few days left in service when the punishment was imposed. 8. Under the above circumstances, the revision petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P4. The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider Ext.P3 revision petition and to take appropriate decision on the aspect of the nature of punishment to be imposed. This may be done after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. W.P.(C) NO. 19958 OF 2003 8 9. The petitioner will make available a copy of the revision petition along this judgment to the 1st respondent. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE pkk