SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Ker) 328

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Alexander Thomas, N.Anil Kumar, JJ.
State Of Kerala, Represented By The Secretary To Government, Forest And Wildlife Department And Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
K.A.Abdul Rahiman – Respondent
OP(KAT).No.52 OF 2021
Decided On : 18-02-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Respondent: Sri.Elvin Peter P.J., Sri.K.R.Ganesh, Advs., Sri.B.Vinod, Sr.Govt.Pleader

The delay in conducting disciplinary proceedings after the retirement of the employee violates the principles of natural justice and fairness. Rule 28(b)(i)(14) of the KS & SSR allows notional promotion and pensionary benefits without convening the Departmental Promotion Committee in certain cases.

Headnote:

Articles 226 & 227 - Kerala Administrative Tribunal - Rule 28(b)(i)(14) of the KS & SSR

Fact of the Case:

The case involved a petition filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the impugned order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal and seeking notional promotion and pensionary benefits for the petitioner.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the impugned order for recommencement of disciplinary enquiry, 20 years after the alleged incident and after the petitioner's retirement, was unreasonable, improper, illegal, and ultra vires. The Court also upheld the Tribunal's direction for notional promotion and consequential pensionary benefits for the petitioner.

Issues: The issues included the validity of the impugned order for recommencement of disciplinary enquiry, the entitlement of the petitioner to notional promotion and pensionary benefits, and the delay in compliance with the Tribunal's directions.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that conducting a disciplinary enquiry 20 years after the alleged incident and after the petitioner's retirement violated the principles of natural justice and fairness. The Court also upheld the applicability of Rule 28(b)(i)(14) of the KS & SSR to the petitioner's case, allowing notional promotion and pensionary benefits without convening the Departmental Promotion Committee.

Final Decision: The Original Petition was dismissed, and the petitioners were ordered to comply with the Tribunal's directions for notional promotion and pensionary benefits within six weeks.

JUDGMENT :

Alexander Thomas, J.

The prayers in the aforecaptioned Original Petition filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India are as follows: (see page Nos.15 & 16 of the paper book of this O.P) :

    “(i) To set aside the Exhibit P4 Impugned Order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in O.A.2315/2017

(ii) To declare that the direction in Annexure A10 Government to conduct fresh enquiry against the Respondent for his dereliction of duty is legal and valid

(iii) To declare that the Respondent is not eligible for notional promotion as claimed by him or any consequential revision of pensionary benefits on the basis of the promotions directed to be granted to him, by virtue of the Exhibit P4 impugned order

(iv) Any other order or direction as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Heard Sri.B.Vinod, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners (State of Kerala, Principal Chief Conservator of Forest & another) in the O.P/respondents in the O.A and Sri.P.J.Elvin Peter, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent in the O.P/sole original applicant in the O.A before the Tribunal.

3. The prayers in Ext.P1 Original Application, O.A.No.2315 of 2017 filed before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, by the 4th respondent/Original Applicant are as follows : (see page Nos.30 and 31 of the paper book)

    “(i) Direct the respondent to close all departmental actions against the applicant and drop the further proceedings pursuant to Annexure A10 order dated 05.05.2017

(ii) Direct the respondent to give notional promotion to the applicant to the post of Asst. Conservator of Forests with effect from 12.12.2000 on which date his immediate junior was promoted and direct disbursal of all monetary benefits to the applicant including revision of pension, full pension, gratuity and other dues.

(iii) Grant such other relief the Honourable Tribunal may deem fit and proper to grant in the nature of the application.”

4. The Tribunal has now rendered the impugned Ext.P4 final order dated 27.11.2019 in OA No.2315 of 2017, whereby, the following directions have been issued in paragraphs 7 and 8 on internal page 4 and 5 thereof: (see page Nos. 187 and 188 of the paper book)

    “7. Though the applicant was eligible for promotion as Assistant Conservator of Forests, he was not included in the select list due to the pendency of the above proceedings. Now that the Government themselves have set aside the final order in the disciplinary proceedings, it turns out that the exclusion of the applicant from the select list is unsustainable. The claim of the applicant for promotion has to be considered by the respondents ignoring the fact that he has already retired from service and his eligibility for promotion with effect from the date on which his immediate junior was promoted should be considered in accordance with law. As the applicant has already retired from service he is entitled to the benefit of Rule 28(b)(i) (14) of the KS & SSR and the matter need not go to the Departmental Promotion Committee again.

8. The first respondent is therefore directed to consider the claim of the applicant for promotion as Assistant Conservator of Forests with effect from the date of promotion of his immediate junior. The first respondent shall pass such orders within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is also directed that the applicant shall be eligible for consequential pensionary benefits on the basis of the promotions to be granted to him based on the above directions. Applicant may submit an appropriate representation along with a copy of this order before the first respondent for such consideration.”

5. The original applicant had entered service as directly a recruited Forest Range Officer under the Forest Department of the State Government in the year 1985 and except a grade promotion in the same post he has not secured any regular/cadre promotion to

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top