Point of Law: It is trite that the principles of natural justice must be read into the unoccupied interstices of the statute/rules or regulations unless there is a clear mandate to the contrary

JUDGMENT :

Mohammed Nias. C.P., J.

The petitioner is the applicant in O.A.(EKM) 1842 of 2020 questioning the dismissal of his Original Application filed challenging Annexure-A8 enquiry report/PR Minutes, Annexures -A10 and A12 to the extent the applicant was given the penalty of barring of three increments with cumulative effect in the departmental enquiry initiated as per Annexure – A1 memo of charges. Departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner on the allegation that he while working as Inspector of Police, Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram City, manhandled one K.G. Suresh Babu at 10. 30 p.m on 3-1-2014 and also registered a false case against him. The petitioner denied the charges stating that the car belonging to K.G. Suresh Babu was parked very near to Raj Bhavan on 3-1-2014 when the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India was camping in the Raj Bhavan. Since Sri. Suresh Babu did not bother to answer on being asked as to why the car is being parked there, the petitioner had to arrest and take him to the police station. It is alleged that the Enquiry Officer was biased and had submitted Annexure-A10 report which was accepted by the disciplinary authority who issued AnnexureA7 show cause notice proposing the penalty of reversion of the petitioner to a lower category of Sub Inspector for a period of five years. By Annexure A-10, disciplinary proceedings were finalised by awarding him the penalty of barring of three increments with cumulative effect. Petitioner filed Annexure-A11 statutory review petition before the Government which was rejected by Annexure-A12 order.

2. The Tribunal dismissed the Original Application by rejecting the contention of the petitioner that copy of the enquiry report was not furnished to him soon after it was drawn up and the same was given only after a provisional decision was taken to impose a penalty of reduction of rank for a period of five years, by relying on Rule 17 (i) (b) of the Kerala Police Departmental Inquiries, Punishment and Appeal Rules, (KPDIP) & A Rules.

3. The contention of the Government that only after the disciplinary authority takes a decision, the copy of the report need to be given to the delinquent employee, together with the findings of the disciplinary authority on the enquiry report, was accepted and accordingly holding that there were no grounds to interfere with the orders impugned, the Original Application was dismissed.

4. Before us, it is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no legally reliable evidence against the petitioner and that the disciplinary authority accepted the enquiry report and decided to punish the petitioner before giving a copy of the enquiry report to the delinquent or obtaining his remarks which deprived the petitioner of his right to point out the vitiating factors of the enquiry report and also for avoiding punishment on the basis of such a report. The enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority not being one and the same, a copy of the report ought to have been given to the delinquent before the disciplinary authority decided on the further course of action to be taken on the report. The learned counsel also argues that Annexure-A13, which was the Government letter dated 21-1-2016 by which the request of Sri. K.G. Suresh Babu for sanction to prosecute the petitioner was rejected was not considered at all.

5. This Court by order dated 24-5-2022 directed the Government Pleader to get instructions on the primary contention of the petitioner regarding the failure to furnish enquiry report which was against the dictum laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar [(1993) 4 SCC 727] and as to whether the matter could be remitted to be done afresh from that stage and in adherence to the dictum laid down in B. Karunakar's Case (supra).

6. We notice that on going through Annexure-A7 show cause notice dated 28-09-2016, that a decision was taken to r