Dismissed

P.v.Suresh Babu v. the Union of India

Kerala HC2 Feb 2023WP(C)/722/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In WP(C) No. 722 of 2012, Justice Amit Rawal dismissed a petition filed by a petition under major penalty for misconduct in service. The Court found no violation of guidelines or principles of natural justice, holding that the inquiry report was properly examined and the punishment was warranted.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the enquiry report and order of major penalty was dismissed.

P.v.Suresh Babu Vs the Union of India — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 13TH MAGHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 722 OF 2012

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

P.V.SURESH BABU
S/O.VASUDEVAN,

¶7

ASSISTANT SECURITY OFFICER,
RUBBER RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF INDIA, KOTTAYAM-9

¶8

BY ADVS.
SRI.D.KISHORE
SMT.MINI GOPINATH

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
UDYOG BHAVAN, NEW DELHI 110 001

¶11

2 THE RUBBER BOARD REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, P.B.NO.1122, SUB JAIL ROAD, KOTTAYAM 686 002

¶12

3THE CHAIRMAN
THE RUBBER BOARD,P.B.NO.1122,
SUB JAIL ROAD, KOTTAYAM 686 002

¶13

BY ADVS.
SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA
SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS
SRI.BINU MATHEW
SRI.B.J.JOHN PRAKASH
SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHAN
SRI.TERRY V.JAMES
SRI.TOM THOMAS KAKKUZHIYIL
MANU S., DSG OF INDIA

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) NO. 722 OF 2012

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The present writ petition on behalf of the petitioner, who has been indicted for major penalty, is directed against the enquiry report Ext.P8 dated 06.02.2008, Ext.P13 order dated 10.03.2009 imposing penalty and order of the Appellate Authority dated 29.04.2010 Ext.P16 whereby the statutory appeal preferred against Ext.P13, has been dismissed.

¶19

The facts in brief are that the petitioner while working as Assistant Security Officer in the Rubber Research Institute of India, Kottayam, joined in 1997, was chargesheeted on account of a spat with one Ashok Kumar exchanging filthy, abusive and vulgar words affecting the discipline, decorum and dignity of service, vide charge-sheet dated Ext.P2 dated 12.2.2007. A detailed reply Ext.P3 dated 18.2.2007 was submitted and it was alleged that prior to issuance of charge sheet the department conducted a preliminary enquiry and examined witnesses, though copy of the statements were not supplied. The reply of the petitioner was found to be unsatisfactory resulting into

¶20

WP(C) NO. 722 OF 2012

¶21

¶22

appointment of an Enquiry Officer. Before the enquiry, the management examined witnesses which were cross examined by the representative of the petitioner who was none else but a legal attorney in terms of the provisions of Rule 11 of the Rubber Board Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1961. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why the major punishment should not be imposed. Petitioner duly replied the same, however, vide impugned order Ext.P13 punishment of reduction in pay for a period of five years was imposed. Similarly reduction of pay for three years to the other co-employee Ashok Kumar was imposed. An appeal preferred as noticed above has been dismissed.

¶23

Sri.D.Kishore, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that while working in the office, petitioner who belongs to scheduled caste community was mentally tortured by the superiors, necessitating him to submit a complaint to the superior officer on 29.11.2006 Ext.P1. It is the fall out of the said complaint, petitioner was falsely charge-sheeted vide memorandum of charges resulting into punishment. On

¶24

WP(C) NO. 722 OF 2012

¶25

¶26

12.04.2007, preliminary hearing was held by the Enquriy Officer, copy of the statement of the witnesses examined in preliminary enquiry were not supplied. However, in the enquiry, management examined PW1 to PW7 whereas the petitioner was examined as DW1. Detailed reply had been submitted by pointing out the inconsistency in the version of the witnesses which prima facie demolished the charge sheet, but ignoring all these facts punish ment of major penalty has been imposed. There should be parity in imposition of the punishment vis-a-vis the other coemployee who had been imposed punishment of reduction in pay of three years. It is submitted that non-supply of the statement of the witnesses is sufficient for setting aside the enquiry.

¶27

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the management – party respondents submitted that the charge sheet ser ved upon the petitioner was more grave than that of the co-worker. The other co-employee was also served with a major penalty but reduction of pay had been confined to only three years. It is settled law that the enquiry proceedings cannot be interdicted and set aside by exercising the power under Article

¶28

WP(C) NO. 722 OF 2012

¶29

¶30

226 of the Constitution of India in view of the reasons laid down in

¶31

the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Muhammed Sharif reported in 1982 (2) SCC 376 , Kasinath Deekshitha v. Union of India and Others reported in 1986 (3) SCC 229 and State of Mysore & Others v. Sivabasappa reported in AIR 1963 SC 375 .

¶32

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised paper book and am of the view that this is not a fit case where interference is warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Before the Enquiry Officer seven w itnesses were examined vis-a-vis the petitioner as DW1. Management brought on record numerous documents to prove the charges. All the witnesses were extensively cross-examined by taking the assistance of a defence lawyer. The statements were so consistent that nothing contradictory or anything contrary surfaced to form a different opinion that what is expressed by the disciplinary authority by imposing a major punishment.

¶33

It is now settled law that once the report of Enquiry Officer has been deliberated upon by the disciplinary authority and

¶34

WP(C) NO. 722 OF 2012

¶35

¶36

also pondered by the Appellate Authority after availing the remedy of statutory appeal, writ court should not interfere in the findings until and unless there has been certain violation of the guidelines

¶37

issued in various judgments regarding non-supply of the copy of the enquiry or violation of the principles of natural justice. This is not the case of such kind. In this view of the matter, writ petition

¶38

is devoid of merit, accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL

JUDGE

nak

WP(C) NO. 722 OF 2012

¶44

¶45

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 722/2012

¶46

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶47

Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
29.11.2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE
MEMORANDUM NO.C1/I/2007-VIG. DATED
12.02.2007.
Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO EXHIBIT P2
DATED 18.02.2007 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER.
Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE RUBBER BOARD SERVICE
(CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL AND APPEAL)
RULES 1961
Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF THE RUBBER BOARD EMPLOYEES
CONDUCT RULES 1958.
Exhibit P6TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTES SUBMITTED
BY THE PRESENTING OFFICER BEFORE THE
ENQUIRY OFFICER ON 19.09.2007.
Exhibit P7TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTES SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE ENQUIRY
OFFICER ON 09.10.2007.
Exhibit P8TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO.C1/1/2007-
VIG DATED 06.02.2008 ALONG WITH THE
REPORT OF ENQUIRY.
Exhibit P9TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED
29.02.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P10TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE CIRCULAR
NO.3/24/1/2008/EST DATED 24.07.2008 OF

¶48

WP(C) NO. 722 OF 2012

¶49

¶50

THE LAST RESPONDENT.

¶51

Exhibit P11TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
09.12.2008 IN W.P.(C) 23537 OF 2008 OF
THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
Exhibit P12TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
25.03.2009 IN WRIT APPEAL NO.642 OF 2009
OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
Exhibit P13TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C1/1/2007-VIG
DATED 10.03.2009 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P14TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P15TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE
ARGUMENT NOTES SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER ON 20.02.2010 BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P16TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM
NO.GZO/EST/21/2010-2011 DATED 29.04.2010
OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE
ORDER OF APPELLATE AUTHORITY.
Exhibit P17TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DTED 18.08.2010
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, RUBBER BOARD.
Exhibit P18TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
NO.59/1/2010-VIG DATED 10.08.2010 OF THE
CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER.
Exhibit P19TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED
20.09.2010 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
RUBBER RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF INDIA TO THE
PETITIONER.
Exhibit P20TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
NO.59/1/2010-VIG DATED 01.09.2010 OF THE

¶52

WP(C) NO. 722 OF 2012

¶53

9

¶54

CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER.

¶55

Exhibit P21TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 11.10.2010
SUBMITTED BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY
UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.
Exhibit P22TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 24.12.2010
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER.
Exhibit P23TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 25.04.2011
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER.
Exhibit P24TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 17.12.2011
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER.

P.v.Suresh Babu v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.v.Suresh Babu v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.J,Amminikutty Vs Jacob George

Binu Vincent Vs the Distict Collector

Raveendran P. Vs the North Malabar Gramin Bank

Official Liquidator Vs Sc

Ymca Vs the Secretary

C.J.Mathew Vs the Registrar of Companies