IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 26TH JULY 2010 / 4TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 22934 of 2010(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- S.BIJU,S/O.SASIDHARAN NAIR, FOREST GUARD,PALODE DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. RESIDING AT:PUTHANCHANDHA,VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.LIJU. M.P RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,FOREST & WILD LIFE DEPARTMENT,GOVT.SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF FOREST CONSERVATOR(ADMN.), FOREST HEADQUARTERS,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASST.FOREST CONSERVATOR,CHIEF FOREST CONSERVATOR'S OFFICE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER,KULATHUPU ZHA RANGE OFFICE,KULATHUP UZHA. MR.ARAVIND KUMAR BABU, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------ WP(C) No.22934 of 2010 (N) -------------------------- Dated, this the 26th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is working as a Forest Guard. Pursuant to Ext.P2 memo of charges, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. Explanation submitted was not accepted. An enquiry was ordered and was conducted. Report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer. It would appear that the Enquiry Officer did not find the petitioner guilty. However, the disciplinary authority issued Ext.P4 show cause notice stating that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were not acceptable and that misconducts were proved against the petitioner. On that basis, punishment of recovery of loss caused to the Department was proposed against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his explanation. However, by Ext.P6 order dated 28/08/2002, the punishment proposed in Ext.P4 was confirmed. Appeal filed by him was also rejected by Ext.P8 order dated 06/07/2006. It is in these circumstances, this writ petition has been filed. WP(C) No.22934/2010 -2- 2. Although several contentions have been raised by the petitioner on the merits of the controversy, in my view, the procedure adopted by the disciplinary authority as reflected in Ext.P4 is erroneous. If a report holding a delinquent not guilty is received by the disciplinary authority, the disciplinary authority is free to disagree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. However before disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, it is incumbent on the part of the disciplinary authority to convey his tentative disagreement to the delinquent and give him an opportunity to make his representations in the matter. This procedure is a requirement of principles of natural justice. 3. Ext.P4 show cause notice, which was issued by the disciplinary authority after receipt of the enquiry report, shows that the disciplinary authority disagreed with the Enquiry Officer without issuing any notice or giving the delinquent an opportunity to file his representation in the matter, and proposed the punishment, which was ultimately confirmed. Thus the disagreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the imposition of punishment on that basis were in violation of the principles of natural justice. WP(C) No.22934/2010 -3- For that reason, I am inclined to set aside Exts.P6 & P8, and therefore, Exts.P6 & P8 will stand set aside. The 2nd respondent is directed to issue notice to the petitioner conveying the tentative grounds on which he intends to disagree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer along with a copy of the enquiry report, and give the petitioner an opportunity to make his representation in the matter, and conclude the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner on that basis. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg