Judges : K.BHASKARAN,BALAKRISHNA MENON
RAVEENDRANATHAN - Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALGHAT - Respondent
Case No : O.P. No. 10529 of 1983-S
Decided On : 02/01/1984
Advocates Appeared :
Party in person; For Petitioner Government Pleader; For Respondents
Disciplinary Proceedings - Violation of Principles of Natural Justice - Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960 - R.15 - Imposition of Minor Penalty without Proper Enquiry
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Upper Division Clerk, challenged the order of the District Collector imposing a penalty of stoppage of increment for six months without cumulative effect, alleging violation of the directions of the court and principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the District Collector circumvented the court's direction by imposing a minor penalty to avoid conducting a proper enquiry as directed. The Court held that the imposition of a minor penalty without following the prescribed procedure for a major penalty was a violation of the principles of natural justice.
Issues: The key issue was whether the imposition of a minor penalty without conducting a proper enquiry as directed by the court and the rules constituted a violation of the principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that the imposition of a minor penalty cannot be used as a shortcut to avoid conducting a detailed enquiry as prescribed for a major penalty. It held that the disciplinary authority's actions violated the principles of natural justice and the directions of the court.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order imposing the penalty was quashed, without prejudice to the respondent's right to deal with the matter according to law and in the light of the court's directions.
1. The petitioner is an Upper Division Clerk in the service of the Kerala State, in the Revenue Department (now in the office of the Special Tahsildar, Vested Forest Land Assignment, Palghat). He feels aggrieved by the order passed by the 1st respondent, the District Collector, Palghat on 29-10-1983, purported to be in compliance with directions of this Court in the judgment dated 29-6-1983 in O. P. Nos. 827 of 1981 and 7978 of 1982. According to him this order has been passed by the District Collector in violation of the spirit of the direction given by this Court in the judgment dated 29-6-1983 in O. P. Nos. 827 of 1981 and 7978 of 1982. We would extract the relevant portion of the directions contained in that judgment:
"The petitioner is highly aggrieved about this long delay in the completion of the enquiry, as according to him, many of the reliefs to which he is entitled would depend upon the result of the enquiry. He has also a case that the charges have not been framed making clear allegations as observed by this Court in Ext. P12 judgment with reference to Para.8 of the statement of allegations attached to Ext. P2 charge memo (vide paragraph C of Ext. P12 judgment). It is for the respondents to consider whether anything in the light of the observation is to be made or not. Whatever that might be it is extremely important that the enquiry with respect to the alleged conduct of the
petitioner for the year 1979 should be complete at least now, without further delay.
I would therefore direct the respondents to ensure that the enquiry, if any pending against the petitioner shall be completed as expeditiously as possible at any rate within three months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this judgment fin the office of the Ist respondent, District Collector, Palghat...
After this judgment, the 1st respondent District Collector is seen to have issued charge memo dated 3-10-1983 inter alia requiring the petitioner to submit his statement of defence within, a week; and it is the admitted case that on 10-10-1983 the petitioner had submitted his statement of explanation. Neither from the counter filed nor from the papers made available to this Court in these proceedings it is seen as to whether anything transpired between 10-10-1983 and 18-10-1983 on which date a show cause notice, order No. A4.77272/82 is seen to have been issued to the petitioner by the 1st respondent Collector. The following paragraphs of that show cause notice would clearly show that no enquiry was conducted between 10-10-1983 and 18-10-1983.
"Sri K. Raveendranathan, U. D. Clerk has submitted his written statement of defence dated 10-10-1983. He had denied all the charges levelled against him. The District Collector has carefully considered the explanation of Sri. Raveendranathan. The explanation is not at all satisfactory. It is found that Sri. Raveendranathan while holding the. post of U.D. Clerk in the office of the Special Tahsildar, PAR, Palghat had delayed putting up of files disobeyed the orders and also misbehaved with the Superior Officers. The charges therefore stand proved.
Naturally this is a case for major penalty. Inefficiency coupled with impertinence has to be put down with a firm hand. But in view of the suspension and the long delay in finalisation of disciplinary proceedings the District Collector takes a lenient view and comes to the provisional conclusion that the increment of Sri. K. Raveendranathan should be stopped for a period of six months, without cumulative effect.
Sri. K. Raveendranathan, U. D. Clerk Office of the Special Tahsildar, PAR, Palghat is hereby directed to show cause in writing, why his increment should not be stopped for a period of six months without cumulative effect, for the above charges, which stand proved. The explanation, if any, to be submitted in response to this notice, should be submitted within 7 days from the date of receipt of this notice and if it is not received within the stipulated time, t
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.