Kerala High Court
A C Devasia vs State Of Kerala on 13 March, 2025
Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
OP(KAT) 513 of 2023 1 2025:KER:21128
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1946
OP(KAT) NO. 513 OF 2023
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.04.2021 IN OA NO.2184 OF 2018
OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/APPLICANT:
A C DEVASIA , AGED 59 YEARS
S/O CHACKO, WORKING AS SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA)
AIRPORT OFFICE NO.1 MATTANNOOR,
KANNUR PIN 670702,
RESIDING AT AYALLOOR MALIL,PAINGANA,
MUNDAKAYAM P.O, KOTTAYAM,
KERALA, PIN - 686513
BY ADVS.
T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN
K.K.AKHIL
T. SREELAKSHMI UNNIKRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
REVENUE (D) DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004
3 THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER,
OP(KAT) 513 of 2023 2 2025:KER:21128
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE,
PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
BY SRI.A.J.VARGHESE, SR.GP
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 03.03.2025, THE COURT ON 13.03.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
OP(KAT) 513 of 2023 3 2025:KER:21128
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & P.KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ
---------------------------------------------------------
OP(KAT)No.513 of 2023
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of March, 2025
JUDGMENT
P.Krishna Kumar.J
The petitioner, a Special Tahsildar (LA) in the Land Revenue
Department, was imposed with a major punishment of withholding two
increments with cumulative effect, challenged the order of imposition of
punishment and the findings in the disciplinary enquiry conducted against
him before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. As per the impugned order,
the Tribunal found that there were no grounds to interfere with the
punishment imposed upon him.
2. On 6.4.2015, one K.S.Sulaiman, a contractor engaged by the
Revenue Department for illuminating a pathway leading to Sabarimala, made
a complaint against the petitioner alleging that despite obtaining a receipt for
Rs 4,11,400/- from him, the petitioner gave only Rs.2,75,000/- to him
towards the payment of the said contract work. Consequently, Annexure A5
charge memo was issued against the petitioner. Apart from the above
allegation, two other charges were also raised in the charge memo viz., (1)
the petitioner withdrew Rs.3,70,000/- from the Bank, which was sanctioned
OP(KAT) 513 of 2023 4 2025:KER:21128
by the District Collector for paying to the said complainant and kept the said
amount in his possession and claimed that it was disbursed to the contractor,
without even obtaining a receipt and (2) the petitioner released part of the
amount in cash to the said complainant, in violation of the administrative
instruction that large amounts should be disbursed to the contractors only
through cheques or Demand Drafts, so as to avoid corruption.
3. As per Annexure A11 report, the enquiry officer found that the
amount sanctioned by the District Collector was in the form of cheques, but
the petitioner got it encashed and disbursed a part of it as cash to the
contractor, which is in violation of the administrative instruction that any
payment above Rs.1000/- should be through Demand Draft. It is also found
that instead of delivering the amount released by the District Collector
through cheque as such to the contractor against proper receipt, the
petitioner obtained a receipt for Rs.4,11,400/- from the contractor and paid
only Rs.2,75,000/- to him which amounts to a serious lapse on his part as a
responsible Government official.
4. Based on the enquiry report, Anenxure A10 show cause notice
was issued to the petitioner intimating the tentative decision to impose a
punishment of barring two increments with cumulative effect and requiring
him to show cause why the said decision should not be finalised. He was also
furnished with the enquiry report along with the said show cause notice.
After considering Annexure A6 reply, the first respondent heard the
petitioner and affirmed the proposed punishment by Annexure A14 order.
OP(KAT) 513 of 2023 5 2025:KER:21128
While passing Annexure A14 order, the Government took into account the
advice of the Public Service Commission in that matter.
5. We heard Sri.Unnikrishnan.T.A., the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner and Sri.A.J.Varghese, the learned Senior Government
Pleader.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned
order by contending that the Tribunal did not notice the grave irregularities
and illegalities in Annexure A14 order and the fact that the enquiry officer
reached the above conclusion without any factual foundation or material
evidence, and further, the petitioner was not given any opportunity to
adduce defence evidence. The Tribunal failed to consider Annexure A6 reply
submitted by the petitioner wherein he specifically stated that the fund was
allotted by the District Collector not by specifying that the same is to be
disbursed to the contractor, but on the contrary, it was for meeting the
expenses in relation to Sabarimala Makaravilakku festival, it is urged.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, receiving advance receipt
is a usual practice in all Government contracts and hence there is nothing
unusual in it. It is also contended that the initial amount awarded to the
contractor (Rs.4,11,400/-) was later reduced by the District Collector to
Rs.3,70,000/-, after a surprise inspection conducted by him. The learned
counsel further submitted that in view of the law laid down by the
Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Managing Director, ECIL v.
B.Karunakar [(1993) (4) SCC 727] the failure of the respondents in not
OP(KAT) 513 of 2023 6 2025:KER:21128
supplying the copy of the enquiry report alone is sufficient to vitiate the
entire proceedings.
7. The learned senior Government Pleader, on the other hand,
submitted that the misconduct of the petitioner is self-evident from Annexure
A6 reply statement furnished by him and thus the findings in the enquiry
could be justified solely on the basis of the admissions made by him in the
reply. He further submitted that the Tribunal considered the entire
contentions raised by the petitioner and the petitioner did not avail the
opportunity to adduce evidence, if any, hence there is no reason to interfere
with the findings of the Tribunal.
8. On a perusal of Annexure A5 memo of charges, Annexure A6
reply furnished by the petitioner and Annexure A11 enquiry report, we are of
the opinion that there is substance in the submissions made by the learned
senior Government Pleader that the factual foundation of the enquiry report
is the admission made by the petitioner in Annexure A6 reply given to the
charge memo. The misconduct found against the petitioner was primarily the
manner in which he disbursed the amount contrary to the administrative
instructions. Even as per his statement, he encashed the cheque through
Peermedu SBT, kept the amount in his custody and initially paid only
Rs.2,75,000/- to the contractor. If the receipt for Rs.4,11,400/- was
obtained as advance receipt, he would have again obtained receipt for the
actual payment made for a lesser sum. Making such payments to a
contractor in cash is prohibited, as such activities may result in corrupt
OP(KAT) 513 of 2023 7 2025:KER:21128
practices. This is why the Government, from time to time, issues
administrative instructions for regulating the release, retention and disbursal
of money by public servants. To say the least, the above transactions were
made in violations of such administrative instructions. Therefore, we find no
force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the enquiry report is not substantiated by any material. We are also not in a
position to consider his submission that the petitioner was not given an
opportunity to adduce defence evidence. The enquiry report clearly shows
that the enquiry officer recorded the statement of the petitioner in detail.
The petitioner has not made any request for summoning any document or to
adduce any further oral evidence.
9. However, the contention that the enquiry report was not furnished
to the petitioner before accepting the same by the Government assumes
some relevance. In Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad (supra) the
Hon'ble Apex Court has held that whatever be the local rules relating to the
disciplinary action, the delinquent should be supplied with the copy of the
enquiry report before accepting the same by the disciplinary authority, in all
cases where the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority are different
persons. Nevertheless, the court further clarified that the failure to supply
the enquiry report at that stage will not vitiate the entire proceedings. It is
held as follows:-
"Hence, in all cases where the Inquiry Officer's report is not furnished
to the delinquent employee in the disciplinary proceedings, the courts
and Tribunals should cause the copy of the report to be furnished to
OP(KAT) 513 of 2023 8 2025:KER:21128
the aggrieved employee if he has not already secured it before
coming to the Court/Tribunal, and give the employee an opportunity
to show how his or her case was prejudiced because of the non-
supply of the report. If after hearing the parties, the Court/
Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the non-supply of the
report would have made no difference to the ultimate findings
and the punishment given, the Court/Tribunal should not
interfere with the order of punishment."
(Emphasis added)
10. This Court recently considered the law laid down by the
Constitution Bench in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad (supra) and
the decision of the Apex Court in State Bank of Patiala and Others v.
S.K.Sharma [(1996) 3 SCC 364], while deciding P.N.Saji v. Kerala Public
Service Commission [2025 :KER : 5997]. This Court explained the course
of action to be followed in cases where the enquiry report was furnished to
the delinquent only at the stage of proposing punishment. In the present
case, the petitioner was given a copy of the enquiry report along with the
show cause notice proposing the punishment. He submitted a detailed reply.
After considering his reply, the Government issued Annexure A14 order. In
view of the admitted factual aspects involved in this case; we are not in a
position to hold that, if the enquiry report was given to the petitioner earlier
and he was further heard on it before accepting the enquiry report by the
Government, there would have been any change in the ultimate outcome. As
held by the Apex Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad (supra)
this Court is bound to make such an assessment instead of interfering with
the punishment imposed by the Government on the ground of non-supply of
OP(KAT) 513 of 2023 9 2025:KER:21128
the enquiry report at a previous stage.
11. The lapses on the part of the petitioner are, in fact, very
serious, but the punishment imposed by the Government is relatively milder.
It is the settled law that the High Court, while exercising its power under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should interfere with the punishment
imposed on the delinquent only if it is shockingly disproportionate. This is not
such a case. Therefore, it is to be concluded that there is no reason to
interfere with the impugned order.
In the result, the Original Petition (KAT) is dismissed.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE
Sd/-
P.KRISHNA KUMAR, JUDGE
dlk/10.3.
OP(KAT) 513 of 2023 10 2025:KER:21128
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 513/2023
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES & EXHIBITS
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.S.S2-32696/2015,
DATED 25/7/2015 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT
COLLECTOR IDUKKI
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 10/9/2015
SUBMITTED BY THE SENIOR FINANCE OFFICER OF
THE COLLECTORATE, IDUKKI
ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE
APPLICANT TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI
TO THE MEMO OF CHARGES ON 5/11/2015
ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.LRD6-33005/15 DATED
6/4/2016 OF THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, RE
INSTATING APPLICANT IN SERVICE.
ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OOF THE MEMO OF CHARGES
NO.67420/D3/2015/REV DATED 9/6/16 ISSUED BY
THE JOINT SECRETARY, REVENUE(D) DEPARTMENT
ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY
THE APPLICANT ON 27/7/2016 BEFORE THE JOINT
SECRETARY, REVENUE(D) DEPARTMENT
ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.A1-1828/2016 DATED
3/11/2016 ISSUED BY THE SUB COLLECTOR, IDUKKI
ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(RT) NO.4831/2016/REV
DATED 16/11/2016
ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(RT) NO.3600/2017/REV
DATED 14/08/2017
ANNEXURE A10 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE
NO.67420/D3/2015/REVENUE DATED 31/8/2017
ISSUED BY THE JOINT SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
ANNEXURE A11 TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT SUBMITTED BY
THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, IDUKKI
ANNEXURE A12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE
APPLICANT ON 11/10/17 TO THE JOINT SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT
OP(KAT) 513 of 2023 11 2025:KER:21128
ANNEXURE A13 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE
NO.67420/D3/2015/REVENUE DATED 31/10/2017
ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (D) DEPARTMENT
ANNEXURE A14 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(RT) NO.4196/2018/REV
DATED 9/10/2018
ANNEXURE A15 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A1-2/50010/2018-
KPSC DATED 4/9/18 SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
TO THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, REVENUE(D)
DEPARTMENT
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ORIGINAL
APPLICATION 2184/2018 DATED 14/11/2018 ALONG
WITH THE ANNEXURES
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED
31/5/2019 FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9/4/21 IN OA
2184/18 OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
