Kerala High Court
T.S.Prabhakaran vs State Of Kerala on 11 June, 2024
Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 21ST JYAISHTA, 1946
OP(KAT) NO. 93 OF 2017
ORDER DATED 24.01.2017 IN TA NO.4834 OF 2012 OF KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/S:
T.S.PRABHAKARAN, AGED 64 YEARS
S/O.SREEDHARAN, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT OFFICER (A D
O)DISTRICT OFFICE IDUKKI, ECONOMICS &
STATITICS,MUTHALAKODAM P.O., THODUPUZHA
BY ADVS.
SRI.ABRAHAM VAKKANAL (SR.)
SRI.DIJO SEBASTIAN
SRI.SAMPATH V. TOMS
SMT.VINEETHA SUSAN THOMAS
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,PLANNING & ECONOMIC
AFFAIRS,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR
ECONOMICS & STATISTICS DIRECTORATE,VIKAS BHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
3 THE SUB TREASURY OFFICER
THODUPUZHA 685 585.
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME
UP FOR HEARING ON 11.04.2024, THE COURT ON 11.06.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(KAT) No.93/2017
..2..
JUDGMENT
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J.
This original petition has been filed by the applicant
before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal,
Thiruvananthapuram, challenging the order of the tribunal
dated 24.01.2017 in TA No.4834 of 2012.
2. The petitioner/applicant, while working as
Statistical Investigator in the office of the DMO, Ernakulam,
was issued with a charge memo dated 04.08.2001, as per
which, five charges were alleged against him. On receipt of
the charge memo, he submitted an explanation and thereafter,
after conducting an enquiry, a show cause notice was issued
to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why the
tentative decision taken to withhold one increment for two
years should not be finalized. Though the petitioner filed a
reply, Ext.P1 order dated 30.01.2003 was issued imposing a
punishment of barring one increment for a period of two
years. In appeal, as per Ext.P2 order, the punishment of
barring one increment for two years was modified as barring
one increment for one year without cumulative effect. A
review petition filed by the petitioner was rejected by Ext.P7
..3..
dated 07.04.2004. After Ext.P7, Ext.P8 order dated
15.04.2004 was issued directing to recover ₹2,500/- from the
salary of the petitioner, if he is found guilty. Challenging
Ext.P7, the petitioner moved this Court by filing WP(C)
No.14061 of 2004 and this Court, as per Ext.P8(a) judgment
dated 02.07.2004, set aside Ext.P7 and directed to consider
the review petition afresh. Before filing of WP(C) No.14061 of
2004, the petitioner had approached this Court and filed OP
No.9067 of 2001 and this Court dismissed the petition with
costs of Rs.2,500/-. The petitioner took the matter in appeal,
wherein it was clarified that the payment of cost would be
subject to the final orders to be issued in the departmental
proceedings. Thereafter, disciplinary proceedings were finally
concluded in appeal by modifying the punishment as
withholding one increment for one year. Challenging the
same, the petitioner moved this Court by filing a writ petition,
which was transferred and renumbered as TA No.4834 of
2012 on constitution of the tribunal. The State of Kerala filed
a counter affidavit, contending that the petitioner was
proceeded against for disobedience and misconduct; and on
finding that he was guilty, he was imposed with the
..4..
punishment of barring one increment for one year without
cumulative effect. It was further contended that the petitioner
had filed OP No.9067 of 2001 challenging the disciplinary
proceedings and he was directed to pay cost of Rs.2,500/-,
which was clarified in appeal. Before the tribunal, the
petitioner filed a rejoinder, stating that all the charges against
the petitioner were fabricated, which was taken note by the
Government Secretary, who issued Annex.A18. In Annex.A18,
it was found that the applicant could not be held guilty of the
charges. In the meanwhile, on attaining superannuation in
2007, he retired from service; however, the first respondent,
vide Ext.P9, reduced the punishment to withholding of one
increment without cumulative effect. After considering the
entire issue in detail, the tribunal dismissed the transferred
application. Hence, this original petition.
3. We have heard Sri.Abraham Vakkanal, the learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Sri.Dijo Sebastian; and the learned
Senior Government Pleader.
4. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that after
the issuance of charge memo, an enquiry was conducted and
as per Annex.A18 note for circulation, it was opined that the
..5..
allegations against the petitioner were fabricated and he was
victimized. It was further submitted that the intention of the
authorities is only to harass the petitioner and Annex.A18
note for circulation was not taken into consideration by the
tribunal while passing the impugned order. The learned
Senior Counsel further argued that the tribunal was under the
mistaken impression that the main grievance of the petitioner
is regarding the cost of ₹2,500/- and not regarding the enquiry
conducted, upon which the impugned Ext.P1, P2, P9 and P13
orders were passed.
5. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader
submitted that in appeal as well as in review, Annex.A18 was
also considered and it is accordingly that the punishment was
reduced by barring one increment for one year.
6. We have considered the rival submissions raised on
both sides. The following charges were levelled against the
petitioner in the charge memo dated 04.08.2001;
"(1) The Attendance Register in the Statistical Cell was
not made available for inspection despite repeated
requests. Moreover, he refused to receive the officer
order to produce and keep the attendance register on
the table of the Administrative Assistance.
(2) The Attendance Register was not made available to
Sri.A.K.Raveendran, Research Assistant and
Smt.S.Leela, O.D.Investigator after 31.10.2000.
..6..
(3) Refused to accept the Memo calling for explanation
for his misbehaviour to head of Office.
(4) Deliberately delayed the preparation of reports
required for Justice Narendran Commission and such
other statistical reports.
(5) Prepared and fabricated document by misleading
the Controlling Officer and made it a part of official
records."
After the issuance of the charge memo, the petitioner was
called for to give a reply and on the basis of the reply filed by
the petitioner, Ext.P1 order was issued imposing the
punishment of barring one increment for two years, which
was modified in appeal by barring one increment for one year,
without cumulative effect. It is seen from records that in the
meantime, the petitioner approached this Court by filing OP
No.9067 of 2001 challenging the initiation of disciplinary
proceedings, wherein he was directed to pay a cost of
Rs.2,500/-. In appeal, it was clarified that the payment of cost
would be subject to the final orders to be issued in the
departmental proceedings. Thereafter, though a review
petition was filed by the petitioner, it was rejected by Ext.P7
dated 07.04.2004. It is at this juncture, the petitioner filed TA
No.4834 of 2012.
..7..
7. While passing the impugned order, the tribunal has
considered the issue in respect of cost of ₹2,500/- imposed on
the petitioner as well as the disciplinary proceedings, which
culminated in barring one increment for one year. In Ext P9
order of review passed by the government, as against the
first, second and third charges, the petitioner was given the
benefit of doubt since the enquiry officer has not succeeded in
proving them clearly. The issue remains only in respect of
charges four and five.
8. Even after the direction issued by this Court to
consider the review afresh, the fourth and fifth charges were
dealt with by the government without proper consideration. In
Ext.P9, it has been stated that since the written statement of
defence submitted by the accused officer was not found
satisfactory, a detailed enquiry was conducted by the then
Additional Director of Economics and Statistics. The petitioner
has produced the note for circulation given by the then
Additional Secretary to government on 29.01.2005, who
passed Ext.P9 order. The said document was obtained by the
petitioner under the Right to Information Act. In the note for
circulation, the officer, in paragraph 38, has opined that, "...all
..8..
the allegations against the petitioner were actually fabricated
and he was victimized. The intention of the authorities was
only to harass the petitioner. Of course, the petitioner tried to
project his image of 'Mr.Clean' in the office, which naturally
must have led to certain unwelcome consequences, which
resulted in all these. The Enquiry was not conducted as per
rules and it is only an eye-wash to inflict a punishment on the
petitioner". As regards charge No.(4), the note for circulation
reveals that the delay in sending statistical reports was due to
the absence of cordial relationship among the staff concerned
and due to non availability of typing materials in the office. As
regards the fifth charge also, it is opined that the mode, in
which the action was dealt with, seems strange without
conducting an enquiry to see whether there is any truth in it.
The petitioner has also produced Ext.P11 order dated
14.03.2003 passed against Sri.K.K.Poulose, who was found
guilty, finding that as per the evidence, the UD compiler had
colluded with Sri.T.S.Prabhakaran (the petitioner herein) to
forge official records. The said officer was described by the
DMO as the 'mastermind' behind all these foul plays. As per
Ext.P11, the said officer was let off. On a perusal of all the
..9..
impugned orders, it is seen that there is no clear evidence
adduced to prove that the petitioner was guilty of charges (4)
and (5). But, the respondents have concluded in all the orders
that the petitioner is guilty of the charges framed against him.
It is true that it is only a report submitted by the Additional
Secretary to Government and the government need not act
upon the same for concluding the disciplinary proceedings. It
is the discretion of the government to decide on actual facts
pertaining to the issue and to impose or modify the
punishment. In order to conclude that a person is guilty of
charges levelled against him, there should be convincing
evidence against him. The petitioner could convince his
innocence before the officer, who heard him in detail, but at
the same time, a modified punishment was imposed.
Punishment cannot be imposed simply to punish a person. He
is an officer, who worked for almost 28 years and received a
good service entry from the District Collector, Thrissur. There
were no complaints or disciplinary proceedings against him
other than the issue in question during his service. The
finding rendered by the enquiry officer in Annex.A18
indicates that the charges were totally false.
..10..
9. We find that without any convincing or satisfactory
evidence, the punishment was imposed on the petitioner, and
therefore, this is a fit case where the issue has to be
remanded back for reconsideration. However, noting that the
issue started in the year 2001, we do not think it proper to
remand it back to the authority concerned after a lapse of
almost 25 years. The benefit of doubt has to be given to the
petitioner/accused in this case. The overall appraisal of
materials on record shows that the disciplinary proceedings
initiated against the petitioner are not a bona fide one. Under
such circumstances, we are inclined to set aside the
impugned order of the tribunal.
Accordingly, the original petition is allowed. The
impugned order of the tribunal is set aside.
Sd/-
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
JUDGE
Sd/-
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
JUDGE
bka/-
