Allowed

O.v.Ouseph v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Jul 2008WA/238/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed an appeal against a minor disciplinary penalty of barring one increment with cumulative effect imposed on a forest guard. The court set aside the punishment because the disciplinary authorities proceeded without any material basis after the Range Officer later clarified that no police case was registered and no inquiry was pending against the appellant.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed; the punishment of barring one increment with cumulative effect, and documents Exts. P5, P8 and P9 (subsequently corrected to P1), were set aside. Consequential reliefs were gra

O.v.Ouseph Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2008 / 13TH ASHADHA 1930

¶5

WA.No. 238 of 2006()

¶6

--------------------

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.4992/1999 Dated 07/07/2005

¶8

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶9

----------------------

¶10

O.V. OUSEPH, FOREST GUARD (WRONGLY SHOWN AS FOREST RANGER IN THE WRIT PETITION), KODANAD RANGE, ERUMUGHAM FOREST STATION, KALADY PLANTATION, KALADY, PRESENTLY WORKING AT KALADY FOREST RANGE, EVERGREEN FOREST STATION, MALAYATTOOR P.O.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶13

-------------------------

¶14

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, FOREST DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

2. CHIEF FOREST CONSERVATOR (PROTECTION), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

3. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, MALAYATTOOR.

¶17

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SANDESH RAJA

¶18

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

J.B.KOSHY & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ.

¶20

W.A.NO.238 OF 2006 (D)

¶21

Dated this the 4^th day of July, 2008

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

KOSHY,J.

¶24

Appellant/petitioner was imposed with a punishment of barring of three increments with cumulative effect, and on appeal and finally in revision before the Government, the punishment was reduced to barring of only one increment with cumulative effect. Even though appellant's case that punishment imposed is a major penalty and enquiry should be conducted cannot be accepted as at the relevant time, it was a minor penalty as per the service rules. But even for imposing minor punishment, there should be some basis for the action. Ext.P1 states that the Range Officer, Thundathil Range had reported that appellant abused two girl students in a bus and he was arrested and was taken to the Kuruppumpady Police station on the basis of the complaint by the employees of the bus for creating trouble, after consuming

¶25

WA.238/06

¶26

¶27

liquor. In the reply Ext.P3, he has denied all the allegations in toto. According to him, no such incident happened. Allegations were raised by the Range Officer due to personal enmity. In the final revisional order, Ext.P4, it is stated that the Range Officer reported that a report was received from the Police Station that a petty case was taken against the appellant and he was entrusted by the employees of the bus and he was send for medical examination. Learned Govt.Pleader produced the files. Files shows that there is no report from the Police Station, Kuruppumpady, that he was not arrested and no case was charged and no enquiry was conducted against the appellant. That document is produced as Annexure A1 in the appeal. That letter is dated 19.6.1992. Therefore, the basis of the charges levelled against him has gone. It is true that no formal enquiry is necessary for imposing minor punishment. But there should be some material for the Disciplinary authorities to impose minor penalty. When Range Officer send a report and replied that no such incident occurred, Range Officer has reported it due to enmity and mala fide reasons and before taking action by

¶28

¶29

WA.238/06

¶30

the Disciplinary authorities, they have to enquire whether any case was charged against the appellant, and in fact in this case, a report from the Police Officer was received to the effect that no case was taken against him and no enquiry is pending. In the above circumstances, the basis of the charge itself had gone and the punishment of barring increment with cumulative effect is illegal and we set aside the same. Hence, Exts.P5, P8 and P9 are set aside and appeal is allowed. Appellant is entitled to consequential reliefs.

¶31

J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE

¶32

P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE

¶33

prp

¶34

“Exts.P5” occurring in the penultimate sentence of the judgment dated 04/07/2008 in W.A.No.238/2006 is corrected and substituted by “Exts.P1” as per order dated 06/11/2009 in I.A.593/2009 in W.A.238/2006.

¶35

Sd/Registrar (Judicial)

¶36

J.B.KOSHY & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ.

¶37

M.F.A.NO. OF 2006 ()

¶38

J U D G M E N T

¶39

26^th May, 2008

O.v.Ouseph v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

O.v.Ouseph v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vidhya Krishnan Vs State of Kerala

Zeenath Vs Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

M/S.Mar Athanasios College for Advanced Vs State of Kerala