R. Bahuleyan Pillai vs State Of Kerala
2024 Latest Caselaw 17394 Ker

Kerala High Court

R. Bahuleyan Pillai vs State Of Kerala on 21 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 MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
     FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 31ST JYAISHTA, 1946
                      OP(KAT) NO. 258 OF 2024
OA    NO.2090   OF   2019   OF   KERALA    ADMINISTRATIVE   TRIBUNAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONERS/APPLICANTS IN O.A.:

      1     R. BAHULEYAN PILLAI
            AGED 63 YEARS
            S/O. RAGHAVAN PILLAI, GRADE RESERVE SUB INSPECTOR
            (NO. Q. 4518), DISTRICT HEADQUARTER RESERVE,
            KOLLAM : 691 001 CURRENTLY RESIDING AT :
            "VAISHNAVAM", THUDAYANNUR P.O., KADAKKAL (VIA),
            KOLLAM : 691 536 PHONE : 9539649950, PIN - 691536
      2     K. J. JOY
            AGED 63 YEARS
            S/O. T. JOSEPH, POLICE CONSTABLE NO. Q. 4691
            (RTD.), ANCHAL POLICE STATION, KOLLAM RURAL
            POLICE DISTRICT, PUNALUR SUB DIVISION, KOLLAM :
            691 306 CURRENTLY RESIDING AT : KANNUKUZHIYIL
            HOUSE, ANAKKULAM P.O., ANCHAL, KOLLAM : 691311
            PHONE : 9048398620, PIN - 691311
      3     K. VASUDEVAN,
            AGED 70 YEARS
            S/O. KOCHUKUNJU. K., POLICE CONSTABLE NO. Q. 4039
            (RTD.), DISTRICT ARMED RESERVE, KOLLAM : 691 001
            CURRENTLY RESIDING AT : K. P. HOUSE, CHENGOOR,
            NETTAYAM P.O., POOYAPPALLI, KOLLAM: 691 537
            PHONE: 9746528312, PIN - 691537
            BY ADVS.
            JINSON OUSEPH
            S.VIJAYAN
            V.PRINCE DEV
            C.RAJESWARA KUMAR
            CHITRA VIJAYAN
 O.P.(KAT).No.258 of 2024
                               2



RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN O.A.:

     1      STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY HOME
            AND VIGILANCE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
     2      DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF & COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
            KOLLAM CITY
            OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF &
            COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOLLAM CITY, KOLLAM, PIN
            - 691001


              SR.GOVT.PLEADER SMT.VINEETHA

      THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP
FOR ADMISSION ON 21.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 O.P.(KAT).No.258 of 2024
                                          3


             A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & S.MANU, JJ.
            ---------------------------------------------------------------
                           O.P.(KAT)No.258 of 2024
           ----------------------------------------------------------------
                  Dated this the 21st day of June, 2024

                                  JUDGMENT

S.MANU, J.

Petitioners are challenging the final order dated

2.4.2024 in O.A.No.2090/2019 of the Kerala Administrative

Tribunal in this original petition.

2. Petitioners were Police Constables of Kerala Armed

Police 3rd Battalion (KAP-III). They joined service in 1986,

1988 and 1987 respectively. They retired from service on

superannuation on 30.6.2018, 31.5.2017 and 31.3.2010

respectively.

3. In 1997 the petitioners and two others were

suspended from service for alleged lapses in duty resulting

in loss of Government money to the tune of Rs.2,49,734/65.

They were later dismissed after an elaborate enquiry. A

criminal case was also registered by East Police Station,

Kollam against the petitioners and two others. Finally, on

12.6.2009, the criminal court acquitted all the accused.

Thereafter, the petitioners approached the authorities for

reinstatement. In the departmental proceedings the first

petitioner was awarded punishment of two stage reduction

on the basic pay of two years with cumulative effect. On

the petitioners 2 and 3, punishment of barring of increment

of one year with cumulative effect was imposed. The period

of suspension and dismissal were reckoned for pension and

gratuity.

4. One Mr.K.K.Rajagopal was a co-delinquent in the

disciplinary proceedings and a co-accused in the criminal

proceedings. He undertook a long term legal battle from

the inception of the proceedings. The details of the cases

and other proceedings at the instance of Mr.Rajagopal is

narrated in detail by the Tribunal in the impugned order in

paragraph No.2. We are not repeating those facts in this

order. The entire period during which he was kept out of

service was regularized as duty for all purposes in the case

of Mr.Rajagopal by Annexure-A5 order dated 14.1.2010.

5. The petitioners were reinstated by Annexure-A4,

A4(a) and A4(b) orders dated 29.3.2010 and 30.3.2010.

Period during which they were kept out of duty was treated

as duty for all purposes except for earned leave salary and

other allowances. Seeking parity as in the case of

Mr.K.K.Rajagopal, the petitioners approached the Authorities

by filing review applications. Annexure-A6 is the order

passed in the review petitions, by the Government. In the

said order, the Government considered the contentions of

the petitioners elaborately and rejected them with reasons.

The Government pointed out that Mr.Rajagopal approached

this Court in W.P.(C)No.34940/2005 and the judgment of

this Court in the said case was in his favour. The

Government concluded that the petitioners are not entitled

to seek identical treatment by regularizing the period they

were kept out of service as duty for all purposes. The

Government noted that the nature of derelictions on the

part of the employees involved were different and

punishments imposed in the proceedings on the employees

were also different. To put it tersely, the Government have

clearly stated the reasons to justify the different approach

adopted in the case of the petitioners convincingly in

Annexure-A6.

6. We have perused the impugned order of the

Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal has rejected the

original application taking note of the fact that Mr.Rajagopal

had challenged the proceedings against him by resorting to

legal remedies diligently and obtained judgment in favour of

him from this Court. On the other hand, till their acquittal

in the criminal case, the petitioners did not challenge their

dismissal from service. Even the reinstatement of the

petitioners was also in the background of the long legal

struggle undertaken by Mr.Rajagopal. The Tribunal noted

that it is left to the discretion of the disciplinary authority to

decide as to how the period during which the delinquent

employees were kept out of service is to be treated. Also

noticing the fact that the punishment was never diligently

challenged by the petitioners, the learned Tribunal rejected the

O.A.

7. We note that the Government in Annexure-A6

order has properly applied its mind to the various

contentions raised by the petitioners and have given cogent

reasons for rejecting the review applications of the

petitioners. The Tribunal has upheld the decision of the

Government after thorough analysis of the facts and

circumstances of the case.

8. The challenge raised against Annexures A2, A2(a)

and A2(b) orders issued in 1998 is highly belated. Similarly,

the petitioners are too late in challenging Annexures-A4,

A4(a) and A4(b) to the extent major punishments are

imposed vide those orders. We reject the reliefs sought in

this regard on account of culpable delay.

9. We are of the view that the order passed by the

Tribunal, affirming the decision of the Government is not

liable to be dislodged in exercise of the supervisory

jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the

Constitution. The petitioners did not challenge the

disciplinary proceedings diligently and obtained benefits out

of the legal battle undertook by a co-delinquent by getting

reinstated in service are not justified in seeking parity in the

matter of regularisation of the period during which they

were kept out of service. The said employee had obtained

favourable judgments from this Court. We note that the

period has been regularized in their case also except for the

purpose of Earned Leave, Half Pay Leave, Pay and

Allowances. Therefore, concurring with the findings and

conclusions recorded by the learned Tribunal in the

impugned order we reject this original petition.

Sd/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

Sd/-

S.MANU, JUDGE skj

APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 258/2024

PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. H2/5508/97/Q DATED 03/02/1997 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.

H2/37(A)/P.R/97 Q DATED 30/03/1998 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT PERTAINING TO THE DISMISSAL OF 1ST APPLICANT FROM SERVICE Annexure A2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.

H2/PR/37(C)/97 Q DATED 04/04/1998 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT PERTAINING TO THE DISMISSAL OF 2ND APPLICANT FROM SERVICE. Annexure A2(b) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.

H2/37(D)/PR/97 Q DATED 30/03/1998 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT PERTAINING TO THE DISMISSAL OF 3RD APPLICANT FROM SERVICE.

Annexure A3                TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT BY THE CJMC,
                           KOLLAM   IN   CC   NO.  112/2000    DATED

22/06/2009 UNDER SECTION 248(1) CRPC IN CRIME NO. 116/97 OF EAST PS, KOLLAM Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. H2/REVIEW-

26(A)/09 Q DATED 30/03/2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST APPLICANT MODIFYING HIS EARLIER PUNISHMENT OF DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE AS PER ANNEXURE A2.

Annexure A4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. H2/REVIEW-

26(B)/09 Q DATED 30/03/2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND APPLICANT MODIFYING HIS EARLIER PUNISHMENT OF DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE AS PER ANNEXURE A2(A).

Annexure A4(b) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. H2/REVIEW-

26(C)/09 Q DATED 29/03/2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD APPLICANT MODIFYING HIS EARLIER PUNISHMENT OF DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE AS PER ANNEXURE A2(B).

Annexure A5                TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. H2/2657/2006




                           Q DATED 14/01/2010        ISSUED   BY   THE   2ND
                           RESPONDENT
Annexure A6                TRUE   COPY   OF   THE  GO    (RT.)  NO.

716/2016/HOME DATED 29/02/2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DENYING THE REGULARIZATION AS DUTY FOR ALL PURPOSE TO THE APPLICANTS Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION DATED 03/04/2019 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST APPLICANT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Annexure A7(a)             TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION DATED
                           05/04/2019   SUBMITTED    BY   THE   2ND

APPLICANT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Annexure A7(b)             TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION DATED
                           05/04/2019   SUBMITTED    BY   THE   3RD

APPLICANT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 02/08/2019 IN OA NOS. 831/2019, 841/2019 & 843/2019 OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.11.2009 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN WP(C) NO34940 OF 2005.

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SAID ORIGINAL APPLICATION ALONG WITH ANNEXURES A1 TO A8 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 23.11.2019 FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION Exhibit P2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 08.06.2022 FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION Exhibit P2(b) TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER DATED 05.06.2023 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MA 1873/2023 FILED ON 05.10.2023 PRODUCING ANNEXURE A9 JUDGMENT Exhibit P4 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA 2090/2019 DATED 02.04.2024