IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 1ST NOVEMBER 2010 / 10TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 28278 of 2010(H) ------------------------------ PETITIONER: --------------- K.P.SASIDHARAN NAIR, DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LR), COLLECTORATE, PATHANAMTHITTA, RESIDING AT KOCHUPUTHEN VEEDU, KONNI.P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU SRI.B.PREMNATH (E) RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-689 645. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY (REVENUE), SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN-695 001. ADV. MR. P. NANDAKUMAR GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1,2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/11/2010, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 29289 OF 2010 & CON.CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) Nos.28278/10, 29289/10, R.P.No.971/10 &C.O.C.No.1215/2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT In the two writ petitions above, the petitioners are two Government servants, who have been suspended from service on allegations of misconduct on the ground that the reports regarding certain lands submitted by them would wrongly tend to help persons, who are claiming forest land as theirs. According to them, those reports will not prima facie show that there is any wrong findings therein which would tend to help illegal claims of persons on government land. They have produced certain documents in support of their case. 2. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State, wherein they have also stated their reasons for coming to the prima facie conclusion that the petitioners are liable to be suspended pending disciplinary proceedings, in so far as the reports filed by them would prima facie tend to show that the W.P.(C)No.28278/10 & Con.cases 2 persons illegally claiming forest land have a right over part of the land in question. They would also submit that in fact deriving support from the reports, which is the reason for suspension of the petitioners, the persons claiming forest land illegally, have filed W.P.(C)No.31290/10 staking claim for the land covered by the reports. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. At the outset I must state that I am not justified in considering the veracity or otherwise of the allegations against the petitioners in so far as the petitioners have only been suspended pending disciplinary action. What I am expected to consider is only whether there is a prima facie case made out for suspending the petitioners. Admittedly, two reports have been filed, one by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.28278/10, which is on the basis of the sketch and report submitted by the petitioner in the other writ petition and the other by the petitioner in the other writ petition. If the report filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.28278/10 is considered in isolation, there may not be anything therein which would tend to show W.P.(C)No.28278/10 & Con.cases 3 that the same is in favour of the persons claiming forest land illegally. But, if the allegations now raised by the respondents are correct, then certainly the report filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.29289/10 would tend to help the persons claiming the land in their efforts to get possession of the said land which according to the respondents is forest land. In paragraph 4 of the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner in W.P. (C)No.2928910, the petitioner has stated thus: “4. The petitioner totally ignorant about R2(a). But I am conversant with the judgment in W.P.(C). No. 19080/2005, since the Tahsildar served a copy of the same for the reference. Even then, I was reluctant to file a report as directed by the Tahsildar as stated in the writ petition. But the compelling circumstances arose out of Ext.P1 referring the direction on the Deputy Collector (Vigilance), I have filed a report stating that the excess extent of the forest land and the land covered by the possession certificates issued by the government to the occupants is to be considered as revenue land. At that time the Tahsildar directed me to change “revenue land” in to the property now the petitioners wants to demarcate as per the reference no 1 mentioned in Ext.P1, enabling him to file a report to the collector on that behalf and to the Deputy Collector (Vigilance), which led to the correction of the report in the present form solely because it is a report to be considered by my superiors having powers to conduct further enquires through the superior officers in the survey department. I have acted so genuinely. I am totally innocent and it does not constitute any misconduct or disobedience or abuse or misuse of position.” W.P.(C)No.28278/10 & Con.cases 4 Going by the same, the contention of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.29289/10 appears to be that he was doing the same as per direction of the petitioner in the other writ petition, which would prim facie lead to the inference that both the petitioners are in collusion in the matter or at least there is reason for the respondents to suspect collusion in the matter. Therefore, in so far as the report filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.29289/10 would tend to help the encroachers, some of the allegations against the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.29289/10 would rub on the petitioner in the other writ petition also. Certainly, in the report filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.29289/10, there is a statement that part of the properties namely, 80.69 acres has been wrongly shown within the 'janda' constructed by the Forest Department, which ought to have been outside the 'janda'. The allegation of the respondents is that this is clearly against the records of the Forest Department and the petitioner should not have given such a report without first examining the records of the Forest Department. If such allegations are true, the truth or otherwise cannot be W.P.(C)No.28278/10 & Con.cases 5 considered in a writ petition challenging suspension, the petitioners are liable to be proceeded with in disciplinary action. Therefore, the action of the respondents suspending the petitioners pending further disciplinary proceedings cannot be faulted. That being so, I do not find any infirmity in the orders of suspension. Hence, I do not find any merit in the two writ petitions and accordingly, the same are dismissed. 4. In view of the dismissal of the writ petitions, R.P.No.971/2010 filed against the interim order dated 8.10.2010 in I.A.No.13766/10 in W.P.(C)No.28278/10 does not survive and the same is closed. 5. C.O.C.No.1215/2010 is filed for taking action against the respondents for non-compliance with the order dated 23.9.2010 in W.P.(C)No.28278/10. Since the writ petition itself has been dismissed, that order would not survive and consequently, I am not inclined to take further proceedings in the contempt case. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is also closed. However, I direct the respondents in the writ petitions to W.P.(C)No.28278/10 & Con.cases 6 complete the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.28278/10 & Con.cases 7