Allowed

K.K. Kunju Cherukkan @ K.K. Anand v. the Rural Development Commissionerate of Rural Development

Kerala HC4 Aug 2020WP(C)/29254/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Rural Development Commissioner regarding a corruption case, the High Court held that the order was illegal as it was issued by an officer who had not heard the petitioner. The petition was allowed and the matter remitted.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P1 is set aside; matter remitted to the first respondent to provide opportunity of being heard and to pass orders expeditiously.

K.K. Kunju Cherukkan @ K.K. Anand Vs the Rural… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.29254 OF 2019(F)

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

K.K. KUNJU CHERUKKAN @ K.K. ANAND KAVALACHAK HOUSE, MANAL BHAGOM, MATTAKKARA P.O, AKALAKUNNAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR SRI.MANU GOVIND

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONERATE OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT NANDANCODE P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 011

¶11

2 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU , EASTERN RANGE, COLLECTORATE P.O, KOTTAYAM 686 002

¶12

R1-R2 GP-SMT K B SONY

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No.29254 OF 2019(F)

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The petitioner, entered in service in 1994, as Vigilance Extension Officer. Later he was appointed as Village Extension Officer, Agalakkunnam Grama Panchayath in Kottayam District. He took charge on 09.01.2008 and was relieved on 31.05.2008.

¶18

He got involved in a case initiated by the VACB under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Final report was laid . The Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam, by Ext.P2 order dated 14.06.2016 in VC.No.3/2011/ERK remitted back the final report as against the petitioner for further investigation by the investigating agency. By final proceedings dated 25.01.2019 of the second respondent, sanction request was submitted to the first respondent. The first respondent entrusted the matter to the Joint Development Commissioner (Estt), Commissionerate of

¶19

WP(C).No.29254 OF 2019(F) 3

¶20

Rural Development, Thiruvananthapuram to hear the petitioner. Pursuant to the notice issued to him, the petitioner appeared before the above officer and submitted his written statement produced as Ext.P3. Thereafter, final orders were passed by the Rural Development Commissioner by Ext.P5 dated 30.05.2019. The above order is challenged by the petitioner on various grounds.

¶21

The specific contention of the petitioner was that, he had appeared before the Joint Development Commissioner (Estt). Necessarily, the above officer ought to have applied his mind and passed the order on it. However, the order was passed another officer, who did not have the opportunity to hear him. To that extent, Ext.P1 order is liable to be interfered with, it was contended.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. I am satisfied that Ext.P1 order was passed by the authority, who did not

¶23

WP(C).No.29254 OF 2019(F)

¶24

¶25

have the benefit of hearing the writ petitioner. Evidently,

¶26

the order is legally not sustainable and against the principle that the person who heard the matter shall pass the order. Accordingly, Writ Petition (C) is allowed. Ext.P1 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the first respondent for giving opportunity to the petitioner to be heard and to pass orders as expeditiously as possible.

¶27

The petitioner will be free to raise all the contentions legally available to him.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶30

R.AV

¶31

WP(C).No.29254 OF 2019(F)

¶32

¶33

APPENDIX

¶34

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶35

EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 1694/ESTT.A2/2012/CRD DATED 19.06.2019 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶36

EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.06.2016 IN VC NO. 3/2011/ERK OF THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE, KOTTAYAM.

¶37

EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 18.05.2019 (YEAR SHOWN MISTAKENLY AS 2018) OF THE PETITIONER.

¶38

EXHIBIT P4 THE SIGNED STATEMENT DATED 20.05.2019 PREPARED DURING THE HEARING BEFORE JDC (ESTT)

¶39

EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE FILE NOTE AS REGARDS EXHIBIT P1 PROCEEDINGS MAINTAINED WITH THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT FROM 30.05.2019 TO 19.06.2019.

¶40

EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE ORDER NO. GO(MS). 46/2015/VIG DATED 18.12.2015.

¶41

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS NIL

K.K. Kunju Cherukkan @ K.K. Anand v. the Rural Development Commissionerate of Rural Development

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.K. Kunju Cherukkan @ K.K. Anand v. the Rural Development Commissionerate of Rural Development

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

T.S.Kuttappan, Vs State of Kerala

Shiyas Vs State of Kerala

Manoharan Chettiyar Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Malik Vs State of Kerala

Ratheesh @ Kuttan Vs State of Kerala

S.Manimekhala Vs State of Kerala