A.M. Ismail v. State of Kerala & The Vigilance Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: ANTONY DOMINIC
Judgment Date: 2011-06-30
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition dismissed; Ext.P3 and Ext.P5 upheld and no relief granted to the petitioner.
Final Disposition: Writ petition dismissed; no relief granted

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

A.M. Ismail

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by the Additional Secretary to the Vigilance(A) Department, Government of Kerala
The Vigilance Tribunal, Trivandrum

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri.V.P.Reghuraj

Counsels for Respondents

• SMT. N.Sudha Devi

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition challenges Exts.P3 and P5, the government orders imposing discipline on A.M. Ismail, a driver in the office of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Department of Commercial Taxes, Devikulam, Idukki. After a memo of charges (Ext.P1) and a written explanation (Ext.P2) were issued, the government referred the matter to the Vigilance Tribunal under the Kerala Civil Services (Vigilance Tribunal) Rules, 1960 for a detailed enquiry. The Tribunal conducted the enquiry, submitted a report finding the petitioner guilty, and the Government accepted the findings, issuing Ext.P3 imposing punishment of withholding five increments permanently. The petitioner filed Ext.P4, a review under Rule 35 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, which was rejected by Ext.P5. The petitioner contends that the punishment was imposed without a copy of the enquiry report, violating natural justice. The Government counters that on 26.11.2001, when Ext.P3 was issued, barring increments was a minor punishment permissible without enquiry, so lack of an enquiry report did not invalidate the action. The court also notes that violation of natural justice does not automatically render action invalid unless prejudice is shown; it cites Gramin Bank v. Manoj Kumar Sinha to support the prejudice principle. Ultimately, the writ petition is dismissed, as there is no demonstrated prejudice and the government’s reasoning is sustained.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Civil Services (Vigilance Tribunal) Rules, 1960Rule 35 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Principles of natural justice
Prejudice as a requirement for invalidating disciplinary action (prejudice must be pleaded and established)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the punishment was imposed without serving a copy of the enquiry report, violating the principles of natural justice. He argues that without prejudice arising from such violation, the punishment cannot be upheld. He relies on the need for fair procedure and the requirement to furnish the enquiry report to enable the affected employee to make an effective defence.

Contentions of Respondents

The Government contends that at the time Ext.P3 was issued (26.11.2001), the punishment of withholding increments was a minor punishment that did not require prior enquiry. Even if natural justice was not strictly complied with, the government argues that prejudice must be shown, which the petitioner failed to establish. It relies on the findings of the Vigilance Tribunal and Rule 35 remedies in support of upholding the disciplinary action.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gramin Bank v. Manoj Kumar Sinha	AIR 2010 SC 2491	Positive	Used to support the principle that prejudice must be shown to invalidate disciplinary action under natural justice standards.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT :** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC** **THURSDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2011 / 9TH ASHADHA 1933** **WP(C).No. 21080 of 2003(H)** **----------------------------------------** **PETITIONER(S):** **------------------------** **A.M.ISMAIL, DRIVER, OFFICER OF THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAX,DEVIKULAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.V.P.REGHURAJ** **RESPONDENT(S):** **---------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO THE VIGILANCE(A) DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT,TRIVANDRUM.** **2. THE VIGILANCE TRIBUNAL, TRIVANDRUM** **BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.N.SUDHA DEVI** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** ## **WP(C)NO.21080/2003** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** - **P1(A) COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO NO.2208/A2/2000/VIG. DATED 16/2/2000 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT.** - **P1(B) COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH EXT.P1(A).** - **P2 COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 1/1/2001 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT.** - **P3 COPY OF THE G.O.(MS)NO.72/2001/VIG. DATED 26/11/2001 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT.** - **P4 COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION DATED 16/7/2002 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT.** - **P5 COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)NO.182/2002/VIG. DATED 29/8/2002 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:** ## **NIL** ## **/TRUE COPY/** ## **P.S.TO.JUDGE** **sts** ## **WP(C)NO.21080/2003** ||**ORDER ON I.A.NO.8007/2003 IN WP(C)NO.21080/2003**| |---|---| ||**DISMISSED**| |**30/06/2011**|**SD/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE**| ||**/TRUE COPY/**| ||**P.S.TO.JUDGE**| ## **sts** ## **ANTONY DOMINIC, J.** ## **----------------------------------------------------** ## **W.P.(C) No. 21080 OF 2003** **-----------------------------------------------------** ## **Dated this the 30[th] day of June, 2011** ## **J U D G M E N T** Challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P3 and P5 orders. 2. The petitioner was working as a driver in the office of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Department of Commercial Taxes, Devikulam, Idukki District. On 16.6.2000, Ext.P1, memo of charges along with statement of allegations was issued to the petitioner alleging various acts of misconducts. To the charges, he filed Ext.P2 explanation. 3. It appears that after considering the explanation Government found that an enquiry is necessary. Accordingly the charges were referred ## **W.P.(C) No. 21080 OF 2003** ## -:2:- to the Vigilance Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram for a detailed enquiry under the Kerala Civil Services (Vigilance Tribunal) Rules 1960. The Vigilance Tribunal conducted a detailed enquiry and submitted its report to the Government finding the petitioner guilty of the charges. Government accepted the findings and the recommendations to impose punishment of withholding of five increments permanently. Accordingly Ext.P3 order was issued, imposing punishment. 4. Petitioner filed Ext.P4 application to review the said punishment, invoking the power of the Government under Rule 35 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules. The review petition was also rejected by Ext.P5 order. It is in this back ground the writ petition is filed. 5. The contention raised by the petitioner is that the punishment imposed was without serving ## **W.P.(C) No. 21080 OF 2003** ## -:3:- copy of the enquiry report and therefore it is violative of the principles of natural justice. However, this plea of the petitioner which was raised in Ext.P4 application was considered and rejected by the Government on the basis that at the time when Ext.P3 order was passed on 26.11.2001, the punishment of barring the increments was only a minor punishment which could have been imposed even without an enquiry. The petitioner has no case that at the relevant time the punishment was a major punishment. If that be so, there is nothing illegal in the impugned order under challenge. 6. That apart, the fact that principles of natural justice have been violated, by itself, will not invalidate a disciplinary action, unless the aggrieved party is able to satisfy the court that prejudice has been caused to him. This ## **W.P.(C) No. 21080 OF 2003** -:4:- principle has been upheld by the Apex court in various judgments including the decision reported in **Gramin Bank v. Manoj Kumar Sinha (AIR 2010 S.C. 2491).** Prejudice is a question of fact which should be pleaded and established by the petitioner. In this writ petition there is absolutely no plea on this aspect. Therefore on that ground also the contention raised by petitioner cannot be accepted. In the result, the writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so. Sd/- **ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE** ul/- [true copy] P.S. to Judge ## **W.P.(C) No. 21080 OF 2003** -:5:- **ANTONY DOMINIC, J. *********************** W.P.(C) No. 21080 OF 2003 ************************* **J U D G M E N T** **30[th] June, 2011.**