IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 2391 of 2011(Y) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ T.PUSHPARAJ, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS, COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADVS. SRI.N.NARAYANAN NAIR, SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN, SRI.SAIJO HASSAN, SRI.RAJAN VELLOTH, SRI.PRATHAP PILLAI, SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTINE. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO REVENUE, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 3. THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY (REVENUE) TO GOVERNMENT & ENQUIRY OFFICER IN THE MATTER OF ENQUIRY AGAINST T.PUSHPARAJ, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF SURVEY, ALAPPUZHA ON ALLEGATION OF EVASION OF ELECTION DUTY - 686 001. 4. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY - 695 003. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH R4 BY ADV. SRI. ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC, KPSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 2391 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on certain allegations of misconduct contained in a memo of charges served on the petitioner on 02.07.1997. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was imposed with a major penalty of barring of 3 increments with cumulative effect by Ext.P7 order. The petitioner is challenging the same on the ground that the punishment of barring of three increments with cumulative effect is a major punishment which has been imposed on him without complying with the mandatory procedure prescribed under Rule 15 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960. The petitioner contends that insofar as no enquiry has been conducted as prescribed under Rule 15 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules the proceedings are unsustainable. The W.P.(C)No. 2391 of 2011 -2- petitioner seeks the following relief: “i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records leading to Exhibits P5 and P7 and quash Exhibits P5 and P7 as illegal and unreasonable.” 2. I specifically directed the learned Government Pleader to get instructions as to whether the contention of the petitioner that a major punishment was imposed on the petitioner without complying with the procedure contemplated in Rule 15 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, is correct. It is not now disputed before me that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is a major punishment. It is also not disputed before me that no enquiry has been conducted as provided under Rule 15 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, after issue of the memo of charges to the petitioner. Of course, the learned Government Pleader relies on Ext.P4 enquiry report which was obtained prior to issue of Ext.P7 memo of charges to the petitioner. The procedure prescribed under Rule 15 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and W.P.(C)No. 2391 of 2011 -3- Appeal) Rules contemplates issue of a memo of charges informing the delinquent officer about the charges against him, giving the petitioner to file a written statement of defence and conducting an enquiry on the specific charges in the memo of charges. That has not been done in this case. Ext.P4 enquiry report can at best be only a preliminary enquiry report and cannot take the place of the enquiry contemplated in Rule 15 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. That being so, the enquiry proceedings cannot be stated to be one after complying with the procedure prescribed under Rule 15 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. For that reason Ext.P7 is quashed. The respondents are directed to start the disciplinary proceedings afresh from the stage of considering the written statement of defence submitted by the petitioner and complete the proceedings afresh following the procedure prescribed under Rule 15 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and take W.P.(C)No. 2391 of 2011 -4- the same to its logical conclusion as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/