IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2008 / 22ND SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 23730 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.V.MURALEEDHARAN, DEPUTY- COLLECTOR,THRISSUR. "POORNASREE", MANNUTHY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA STATE. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND CIVIL SERVICES, NEW DELHI. 5. THE UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, NEW DELHI. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.R.SREELATHA FOR R1 & 2 SC SRI. ALEXANDER THOMAS FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J ------------------- W.P.(C).23730/2008 -------------------- Dated this the13th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Deputy Collector. He was directly recruited as Deputy Collector in the Kerala Civil Service (Executive) at the young age of 25. Ext.P1 is the appointment order issued in that regard on 3.8.1989. After training, the petitioner joined duty as Deputy Collector on 19.10.1990. His probation was also declared to have been satisfactorily completed with effect from 20.10.1992 by Ext.P2 proceedings dated 21.11.1995, issued by the State Government. He was also granted senior grade as per Ext.P3 order dated 11.1.1996, with effect from 1.7.1993. The petitioner is now facing disciplinary action on various counts. His name is included in the list of officers of the State Civil Service to be considered for appointment to the Indian Administrative Service by promotion. The petitioner has filed this writ petition aggrieved by the delay in finalization of the various disciplinary proceedings W.P.(C).23730/2008 2 initiated against him. He has in this writ petition prayed for the following reliefs:- (i).Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1 and 2 to complete the disciplinary proceedings initiated pursuant to Ext.P4. (ii).Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1 and 2 to complete the disciplinary proceedings initiated pursuant to Ext.P41. (iii).Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1 and 2 to pass orders on Ext.P25 review petition immediately. (iv).Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1 and 2 to pass orders on Ext.P36 review petition immediately. (v).Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to include the name of the petitioner in the select list for appointment to the Indian Administrative Service to be filled up from among the eligible officers of the State Civil Service W.P.(C).23730/2008 3 and to forward the same to the fifth respondent. (vi).To direct the respondents to reserve a post in the Indian Administrative Service to be filled up from among the eligible officers of the State Civil Service proposed to be filled pursuant to Ext.P45. 2. The pleadings disclose that in relation to the alleged acts of misconduct committed by the petitioner, while he was the Additional District Magistrate, Palakkad, Ext.P4 memo of charges dated 29.1.1996 was issued. The proceedings initiated against the petitioner by Ext.P4 culminated in Ext.P9 order dated 21.8.2001 whereby the Government imposed on the petitioner the punishment of barring three increments with cumulative effect. The petitioner thereupon filed Ext.P10 Review Petition dated 3.10.2001 before the Government seeking review of Ext.P9 invoking the power of the Government under Rule 35 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1960. By Ext.P11 judgment delivered on 20.2.2008, this Court had directed the Government to dispose of the said Review Petition within two months from the date of W.P.(C).23730/2008 4 production of a copy of the judgment. The petitioner complains that notwithstanding the said direction, and the fact that a certified copy of the judgment was produced before the Government in February, 2008 itself, the review petition has not been disposed of till date. 3. Another disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner in respect of alleged acts of misconduct committed by him while he was the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengannoor. Ext.P18 dated 23.11.2001 is the memo of charges issued in that regard. In Ext.P20 enquiry report dated 29.10.2004, the Enquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner of the charges. The Government, disagreeing with the enquiry report, issued Ext.P21 show cause notice dated 22.9.2005. The petitioner submitted Ext.P23 reply dated 18.11.2005. Ultimately by Ext.P24 order dated 4.12.2007, the Government imposed on the petitioner, the punishment of barring two increments with cumulative effect. The petitioner has in Ext.P25 dated 14.7.2008, sought a W.P.(C).23730/2008 5 review of Ext.P24 order. The said review petition is also pending and has not been disposed of. 4. Yet another disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner in respect of alleged acts of misconduct committed by him while he was the Revenue Divisional Officer, Devicolam. Ext.P27 dated 21.8.2003 is the memo of charges issued in that regard. An enquiry into the charges levelled against the petitioner in Ext.P27 was held. The Enquiry Officer by Ext.P32 report dated 19.1.2005 exonerated the petitioner of all charges. The Government, disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, issued Ext.P33 show cause notice and ultimately by Ext.P35 order dated 30.9.2006, imposed on the petitioner, the punishment of barring two increment with cumulative effect. The petitioner has in Ext.P36 dated 2.11.2006 sought a review of the order imposing punishment. The said review petition is also stated to be pending. 5. Yet another disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner by Ext.P37 show cause notice dated W.P.(C).23730/2008 6 22.12.2005 in respect of alleged acts of misconduct committed by him, while he was functioning as Deputy Collector, (Land Revenue), Palakkad. Ext.P39 is the memo of charges issued on 24.3.2007. The Enquiry Officer, in Ext.P40 report dated 19.11.2007, held him guilty of the charges. Final orders have not yet been passed in the matter. 6. The last of the series of disciplinary actions against the petitioner was initiated as per Ext.P41 memo of charges dated 12.10.2006 which was communicated to the petitioner on 1.12..2006. The Enquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner of all the charges. Ext.P42 is a copy of the enquiry report. According to the petitioner, the disciplinary action initiated against him as per Ext.P41 has also not been finalized and therefore, he has submitted Ext.P43 representation dated 22.11.2007 seeking expeditious completion of the proceedings. 7. As directed by this court, the second respondent has filed a statement dated 8.8.2008. The fact that the various disciplinary proceedings initiated against the W.P.(C).23730/2008 7 petitioner are pending at various stages, is not disputed in the statement. It is also stated that apart from the five disciplinary proceedings which are pending, a vigilance case VC10/03/IDK, has been registered against the petitioner in connection with the allegation of issuance of Bogus Pattayams to various persons and that the said case is pending investigation. It is further stated that completion of the disciplinary proceedings involves consultation with Kerala Public Service Commission, if it is found necessary and that a final decision in the matter can be taken only in consultation with the Law Department and the Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department. The statement also discloses that though the petitioner has been included in the list of State Civil servants eligible to be considered for appointment to the Indian Administrative Service by promotion, due to the pendency of the disciplinary/vigilance cases against him, the integrity certificate has not been issued. 8. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by Sri.George Poonthottam, the learned counsel W.P.(C).23730/2008 8 appearing for the petitioner and Smt.M.R.Sreelatha, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. From the statement filed by the second respondent, it is clear that in three of the cases, orders have to be passed only on the Review Petitions and in two of the cases, the Government is yet to finalize the disciplinary proceedings. The Review Petitions are those evidenced by Exts.P10, P25 and P36. Ext.P10 Review Petition was filed on 3.10.2001 and this Court had by Ext.P11 judgment delivered on 20.2.2008, directed the said Review Petition to be disposed of within two months from the date on which a copy of the judgment is received by the respondents. The petitioner has stated that a certified copy of Ext.P11 judgment was made available to the disciplinary authority in February, 2008 itself. The said statement is not disputed by the second respondent. However, it is stated that in the review petition, the petitioner was heard on 7.8.2008. As regards the review petition evidenced by Ext.P25 dated 14.7.2008 and the review petition evidenced by Ext.P36 dated 2.11.2006, it is stated that they are being examined. In the two disciplinary proceedings initiated W.P.(C).23730/2008 9 as per Exts.P39 and P41, the Enquiry Officer has found the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled in Ext.P39 memo of charges dated 24.3.2007 and exonerated him of the charges levelled in Ext.P42. Ext.P40 enquiry report is dated 19.11.2007 and Ext.P42 is dated 6.8.2007. The Government have not till date initiated any further steps in the matter. 9. Having regard to the fact that the Government as the disciplinary authority awarded the punishment which is sought to be reviewed, I find no merit in the stand taken by the respondents that a time frame cannot be set for the expeditious disposal of the Review Petitions. While it is true that the action should be taken against Government employees guilty of misconduct, the disciplinary authority cannot adopt a luke warm attitude in matter of disposal of the Appeals/Review Petitions filed by the aggrieved delinquent employee. The remedy by way of appeal/review is a valuable statutory right conferred on the employee. That right cannot be defeated on technical pleas like the plea that the Finance W.P.(C).23730/2008 10 Department, the Personal & Administrative Reforms Department and the Kerala Public Service Commission will have to be considered. That is the duty of the disciplinary authority and the petitioner cannot be visited with the consequences of delay on the part of the disciplinary authority in moving the concerned authorities to ascertain their views. The Law Department and the Personal & Administrative Reforms Department function in the Administrative Secretariat. The stand taken by the Government in the last paragraph of the statement dated 8.8.2008, would indicate that the Government does not wish to set a time frame for finalizing the various disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner years back. In my opinion, the petitioner's grievance that the delay in the disposal of the review petitions/finalization of the disciplinary proceedings is intended to defeat his claims for being considered for appointment to the Indian Administrative Service, does not appear to be totally unfounded. In my considered opinion, the Government has a duty to expeditiously dispose of the Review Petitions and to finalize the disciplinary action against W.P.(C).23730/2008 11 the petitioner. Ext.P45 proves that the Government is aware of the fact that the petitioner’s name is also included in the list of officers of the State Civil Service who are being considered for appointment to the Indian Administrative Service by promotion. 10. In the circumstances stated above, I direct the Government to pass final orders on Exts. P25 and P36 Review Petitions within a period of four months from today. The petitioner shall, to enable the Government to comply with he directions issued in this judgment, produce separate certified copies of this judgment along with separate representations. As regards the proceedings initiated against the petitioner by Exts.P39 and P41 memos of charges, the Government shall take a final decision in the matter after complying with the provisions of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1960. Needless to say, the petitioner shall also co-operate with the disciplinary authority in the matter of expeditious disposal of the said disciplinary proceedings. The Government shall also finalize the proceedings initiated pursuant to Exts.P39 W.P.(C).23730/2008 12 and P41 memos of charges within the aforesaid period of four months. I make it clear that I have not pronounced upon the eligibility of the petitioner to be considered for appointment to the Indian Administrative Service. It will be open to the petitioner to separately pursue the remedies if any, available to him in law in respect of the aforesaid claim. His contentions in that regard are left open. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge mrcs