IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2008 / 13TH POUSHA 1929 OP.No. 8281 of 2002(J) ---------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- PUSHPARAJAN, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN, KATTUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, PULLOORMUKKU, KALLAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF SRI.A.MOHAMED RASHEED RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM . 4. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE(PRISON), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SMITHA BABU. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.827 OF 2005 IN OP.NO.8281 OF 2002. DISMISSED. 3-1-2008. Sd/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- P1: Copy of the order No.E.78/76 dated 7/7/1997 issued by the Superintendent Central Prison, Viyyur, Trichur. P2: Copy of the certificate of service No.258561 dated 2-1-1976 issued to the petitioner by the Madras Regiment of the Military. P3: Copy of the statement dated Nil forming the basis of the memo of charges. P4: Copy of the Order No.E2-861/87 dated 18-1-1989 issued to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent. P5: Copy of the GO(P)No.76481(384)/Fin. Dated 16-11-1981 of the first respondent. P6: Copy of the communication No.E2/19999/89 dated 7-11-1989 issued to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent. P7: Copy of the appeal memorandum dated 16-3-1989 submitted by the petitioner before the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Kerala, Trivandrum. P8: Copy of the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in OP.No.27836/2000 dated 16-2-2001. P9: Copy of the order No.10843/B3/2001/Home dated 27-11-2001 of the first respondent. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- Nil. ( true copy ) P.A. TO JUDGE. Kvs/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = O.P.No.8281 OF 2002-J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2008. J U D G M E N T This is a case where the allegation is that the petitioner has been dismissed from service without following any of the procedure contemplated under the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules. Admittedly a major punishment of dismissal was imposed against the petitioner as per Ext.P4. The petitioner was issued with Ext.P3 memo of charges. Allegations were raised against him based on the complaint said to have been submitted by one of the female prisoners in the Kottayam Sub Jail. The incident is said to have happened during the night on 4-1-1987. Ext.P4 does not reveal the fact that any enquiry was held by an officer duly appointed for the purpose. Ext.P4 order is passed by the Deputy Jail Inspector General imposing the punishment. The references in Ext.P4 shows that apart O.P.No.8281 OF 2002-J. 2 from the memo of charges, explanation submitted by the petitioner and the show cause notice proposing the punishment, there was nothing by way of a report of enquiry. Be that as it may, the petitioner challenged the same in Ext.P7 appeal before the Government. Since there was undue delay in hearing the appeal he filed a further representation seeking disposal of appeal. Since there was no response in the matter he filed OP.No.27836 of 2000 which was disposed of by Ext.P8 judgment. The learned Single Judge directed Ext.P10 to be considered on merits and appropriate orders passed, if it is still pending. The petitioner was also allowed an opportunity to file a further representation before Ext.P10 is directed to be considered. 2. But the Government without properly complying with the directions in the judgment to consider the matter on merit, disposed the appeal by Ext.P9 order taking the view that there is nothing to be considered on merit as a period of 12 years have elapsed. This is not a satisfactory way by which an appeal filed by the petitioner who was dismissed from service has to be disposed of. 3. The respondents have filed a counter-affidavit. Therein O.P.No.8281 OF 2002-J. 3 justification is sought for dismissal of the petitioner. The counter- affidavit does not reveal the conduct of an enquiry as contemplated under the rules. The filing of Ext.P7 appeal is also not disputed. There is no proper explanation for not considering the matter on merits. In the light of the above, it is evident and clear that instead of disposing of the appeal on merits the Government had gone in a short cut way to dispose of the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner. The said approach is totally unsatisfactory. In the light of the direction in Ext.P8 judgment to consider the matter on merit the appeal ought to have been disposed of after considering the matter on its merit. Therefore Ext.P9 is quashed. The Government will pass fresh orders on Ext.P7 appeal after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner within a period of five months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 4. The petitioner has got a grievance that no proper enquiry was conducted as empowered under the rules before Ext.P4 order was passed. While disposing of the appeal the Government will consider the merits of the said aspects raised by the petitioner and other contentions O.P.No.8281 OF 2002-J. 4 raised by him in Ext.P7 and other representations also. Since the matter is directed to be disposed of afresh the claim raised about the salary, subsistence allowance etc., will depend upon the final order to be passed. The original petition is allowed as above. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. kvs/