High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2020-02-12Original Petition disposed of with directions t...

Joy John v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:OP(KAT).No.48 OF 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Vinod Chandran, J
V. G. Arun, J
Judgment Date: 2020-02-12
Court Decision / Holding: The Original Petition is disposed of accordingly. The High Court directs the Government to positively consider the petitioner’s explanation with reference to the cited judgment within two weeks and to communicate its decision thereon. The Principal Secretary, Local Self Government Department, is to ensure that further proceedings, if any, are considered and to report back; the petitioner is to appear on 24.02.2020 or on a convenient date fixed by the Principal Secretary, and a written decision should be communicated by 06.03.2020. The matter is to be posted before the Court on 09.03.2020 to ensure compliance with the directions.
Final Disposition: Original Petition disposed of with directions to consider explanations and decide on further action within specified timeframes.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Joy John, aged 53 years, S/o. Late Yohannan, working as Performance Audit Supervisor, PAU Unit-III, Kattakkada, Panchayath Department (now Deputy Director of Panchayath, Thrissur) residing at Chembaratimottil House, Darshan Nagar, House No.508, Peroorkada, Thiruvananthapuram

Respondents

State of Kerala, represented by the Principal Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Government Secretariat - Annex, Thiruvananthapuram, PIN 695001
Director of Panchayath, Public Office Building, Museum, Thiruvananthapuram, PIN 695001
Additional Director of Panchayath, Public Office Building, Museum, Thiruvananthapuram, PIN 695033

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• C. S. Ajith Prakash
• T. K. Devarajan
• T. N. Sreekala
• Franklin Arackal
• Paul C Thomas
• M. B. Soori
• Babu M.
• Ancy Thankachan

Counsels for Respondents

• Sr. GP T. Rajasekharan Nair

Case Synopsis & Summary

Joy John, an official in the Panchayats Department, challenges a common order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT) that disposed of three originals filed against him, by way of OP(KAT) No. 48 of 2020, against OA(EKM) No. 1815/2017 disposed on 11 December 2019. The petitioner contends the three charges levelled against him were vague and politically motivated due to enmity over a prior transfer challenge. The first charge relates to a fracas at the District Panchayat, Poovachal, where the petitioner allegedly used unsavory language; the Tribunal held the charge vague because the language used was not specified. The second charge concerns a report recommending cancellation of a marriage; the petitioner contends he submitted a report in discharge of his official duties, not to cancel a marriage, and no applicable rule was cited, with the Tribunal again finding vagueness. The third charge, from his tenure as Secretary of Vilavoorkkal Grama Panchayat (2012–2014), concerns alleged irregularities about development plans and building permits. The Tribunal, noting vagueness on the first two charges, proceeded to examine the third, and invoked a 2018 Kerala High Court decision (Nafeeza) to argue there were circumstances where a development permit was not required. The High Court ultimately disposed of the petition, directing the Government to consider the petitioner’s explanation within two weeks and to decide on further action, with the matter re-listed on 09.03.2020. The decision preserves the disciplinary process while ensuring timely exercise of the government’s powers.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that all three charges were vague and unsubstantiated, undermining due process. The first charge about a district-level fracas lacked specific language, rendering proceedings untenable. The second charge regarding the marriage cancellation report was said to be within the petitioner's duties and based on a report, not an action to cancel, with no rules cited to justify the accusation. The third charge concerns development plans and permits during 2012–2014; the petitioner argues there is no requirement for a development permit in such circumstances, citing the 2018 High Court decision Nafeeza (2018 (3) KHC 473). He asserts that vigilance findings about non-collection of land development/permit fees were misapplied, and that the government should not conduct further domestic enquiries. He prays for quashing the charges or the disciplinary actions and to ensure due process and timely consideration of his explanations.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents maintain the disciplinary proceedings were valid; the charges were supported by material in the record, and the Tribunal’s findings on vagueness were limited to the first two charges. They rely on the ongoing process and the Tribunal’s directions to the government to decide on further action, while seeking to preserve the integrity of disciplinary proceedings and the actions already taken or proposed.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Nafeeza and Another v. Chavakkad Municipality and Others	2018 (3) KHC 473	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that development permit/legal requirements may be context-specific and, in the cited circumstances, not mandatory.
Civil Appeal No.5203/2017 (Apex Court)	Civil Appeal No.5203/2017	Mentioned Only	Exhibited in Appendix; not discussed in the body of the judgment.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Joy John v. State of Kerala and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 23RD MAGHA, 1941** **OP(KAT).No.48 OF 2020** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA (EKM) 1815/2017 DATED 11-12-2019 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVETRIBUNAL,** **THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **JOY JOHN, AGED 53 YEARS S/O.LATE YOHANNAN, WORKING AS PERFORMANCE AUDIT SUPERVISOR, PAU UNIT-III, KATTAKKADA, PANCHAYATH DEPARTMENT, (NOW WORKING AS DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, THRISSUR, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOL) RESIDING AT CHEMBARATHIMOOTTIL HOUSE, DARSHAN NAGAR, HOUSE NO.508, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **BY ADVS. SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH SRI.T.K.DEVARAJAN SMT.T.N.SREEKALA SRI.FRANKLIN ARACKAL SRI.PAUL C THOMAS SRI.M.B.SOORI SHRI.BABU M. SMT.ANCY THANKACHAN** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT - ANNEX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN695001.** **2 THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.** **OP(KAT).No.48 OF 2020 2** **3 ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.** ## **SR. GP SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR** **THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **OP(KAT).No.48 OF 2020 3** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Dated this the 12[th] day of February, 2020** ## **K.Vinod Chandran, J** This Original Petition is against a common order of the Tribunal, which disposed of three original applications. The challenge here, is only against the disposal of one of the original applications. The three original applications were filed against three separate charge sheets issued against the petitioner. The action is alleged to be motivated by the enmity harboured by the department, for reason of the petitioner's successful challenge against his transfer. 2. Admittedly, petitioner had challenged his transfer from Thiruvananthapuram to Kollam, for reason of the post in which the petitioner was transferred from Thiruvananthapuram was filled up by a State level office holder of an association, who has allegiance to the political party in power. The Government first refused to obey the interim order of the Tribunal, later a contempt was filed and the petitioner was accommodated back ## **OP(KAT).No.48 OF 2020 4** in Thiruvananthapuram, in the post from which he was transferred. 3. For completion, we have to briefly look at all the three charges, two of which were held to be not sustainable by the Tribunal itself for reason of the vagueness of the allegations. The first charge was with respect to an alleged fracas which occurred at the District Panchayat, Poovachal. Ther charge is that, for reason of a conference hall being not allotted to the petitioner, who had been deputed for audit, the petitioner used unsavory language, not becoming of a Government servant, causing disrepute to the District Committee of the Panchayat. There was nothing indicated in the charge sheet as to what was the language used. Nor was it available from the reports received from the Panchayat President and the Joint Superintendent. The Tribunal found that the charge was vague and there could be no proceedings initiated on that charge. 4. The next charge was with respect to a report submitted by the petitioner for the purpose ## **OP(KAT).No.48 OF 2020 5** of cancellation of a marriage. It is seen from the records that there was a marriage registered and later a complaint was received from the bride, that such a marriage had not taken place at all. A report was made by the petitioner to the Director of Panchayat in which a cancellation was recommended. The allegation was that, such a recommendation was against the rules existing in the matter. The Tribunal found that, first of all, the petitioner had not cancelled the registration for reason of he being not the authority and had merely submitted the report recommending the cancellation as sought for by the bride. Further it was also noticed that, no rule was quoted and the allegation that the recommendation was against the existing rules was vague. The said charge also was set aside by the Tribunal. 5. We have to look at the third charge in the background of the other two charges having been found to be vague by the Tribunal itself. The third charge related to the allegation against the ## **OP(KAT).No.48 OF 2020 6** petitioner while he was the Secretary of the Vilavoorkkal Grama Panchayat between 2012-2014. The first contention was that a complaint was received manually, in the office of the Director of Panchayats and the complainant could not be traced out. It is also submitted that the allegation with respect to the development plan and permit having not been obtained by the owner of the property cannot be sustained for reason of the owner having not developed the property at all. In fact there were small parcels bought by purchasers, who had sought for the building permit. 6. The contention of the petitioner is that, as of now there is no requirement for a development permit as has been declared in _**2018**_ _**(3) KHC 473 Nafeesa and Another v. Chavakkad Municipality and Others**_ . It is also argued that, after Ext.P13 preliminary enquiry report of the Additional Director of Panchayats, a vigilance enquiry was conducted as recommended therein. The vigilance report was produced before the Tribunal ## **OP(KAT).No.48 OF 2020 7** in a sealed cover. The Tribunal has recorded that the recommendations in the vigilance report are three in number, which we extract here under: _“...The first one is that explanation can be sought for from the applicant for not collecting the land development/permit fees before issuing the building permit; the Chief Engineer, Local Self Government Department could be asked to obtain explanation from the former grade Overseers now working in Fort Zonal Officer, Thiruvananthapuram Corporation and as Assistant Engineer, Punalur Municipality in not recommending to collect the land development fee and lastly, it is also recommended that steps can be taken to collect the land development fees from the present owners.”_ 7. It is hence submitted that there is absolutely no reason why there should be a domestic enquiry, especially since the vigilance officer has only found that there was no collection of land development/permit fees which has been held to be not permissible as per the cited decision in _Nafeeza_ . We will not look at ## **OP(KAT).No.48 OF 2020 8** the allegation and the sustainability of the same since we would be then preempting the disciplinary authority from doing so. We also are in judicial review of an order of the Tribunal which after considering the allegation as also the entire facts directed the Government to decide on whether further proceedings are to be taken within two weeks. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that the original petition has to be rejected, but however with certain directions, especially noticing the fact that, though the order of the Tribunal was passed on 11.12.2019, even after two months, there is no consideration made by the Government. 8. Learned Government Pleader would seek to explain that, since the original petition was pending, it was not considered. We see that the admission of the original petition itself was on 31.01.2020, after the period granted by the Tribunal expired. In such circumstances, we direct the Government to positively consider the explanation of the petitioner with reference to ## **OP(KAT).No.48 OF 2020 9** the cited judgment, after hearing the petitioner, within a period of two weeks from today. Learned Government Pleader is directed to communicate our directions to the Government. 9. Since it is submitted that the Directorate of Panchayat's is inimical towards the petitioner, it is directed that the Principal Secretary to Government, Local Self Government Department shall consider whether further proceedings are to be taken or not. Petitioner shall appear before the Principal Secretary to Government on 24.02.2020, and if there is any inconvenience for the Principal Secretary, then his office shall intimate a date which is convenient to him, which shall positively be before 28.02.2020. A decision in writing shall be communicated to the petitioner, which shall also be arrived at on or before 06.03.2020. Though we have disposed of the matter, we direct that the original petition be posted before us on 09.03.2020, to ensure that our directions are complied with. **OP(KAT).No.48 OF 2020 10** The Original Petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- **K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE** **Sd/V.G.ARUN JUDGE** uu ## **OP(KAT).No.48 OF 2020 11** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF COMMON ORDER DATED 11TH DECEMBER 2019 OF THE HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (ADDITIONAL BENCH, ERNAKULAM) IN OA (EKM)NO.1815/2017. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OA(EKM) NO.1815/2017, DATED 16.8.2017. EXHIBIT P2(A1) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.E11/1800/2014 DATED 2.5.2014 CONTAINING THE NOTES FOR DPC OF THE YEAR 2014 FORWARDED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO LSG DEPARTMENT. EXHIBIT P2(A2) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E11-11/2015 DATED 11.11.2016. EXHIBIT P2(A3) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E1-01/2017 DATED 3.2.2017. EXHIBIT P2(A4) A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH DATED 3.2.2017. EXHIBIT P2(A5) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8.2.2017 IN O.A.(EKM)272/2017. EXHIBIT P2(A6) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.2.2017 IN O.A.(EKM)272/2017. EXHIBIT P2(A7) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 16.2.2017. EXHIBIT P2(A8) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF TRANSFER OF CHARGE. EXHIBIT P2(A9) A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 17.2.2017. EXHIBIT P2(A10) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21.2.2017. EXHIBIT P2(A11) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE DIRECTORATE OF PANCHAYATH DATED 22.2.2017. EXHIBIT P2(A12) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.2.2017 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH.** ## **OP(KAT).No.48 OF 2020 12** **EXHIBIT P2(A13) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PRESENT DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH IN OA(EKM) 272/2017 DATED 13.6.2017.** - **EXHIBIT P2(A14) A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DIRECTING PAYMENT OF SALARY DATED 23.3.2017.** - **EXHIBIT P2(A15) A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF DRAFT CHARGES DATED 22.3.2017 FILED IN COC.NO.40/2017.** **EXHIBIT P2(A16) A TRUE COPY OF ONE SUCH COMPLAINT DATED 3.2.2017.** - **EXHIBIT P2(A17) A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF PAU UNIT.** - **EXHIBIT P2(A18) A TRUE COPY OF THE GRADATION LIST IS THE 10TH PERSON ELIGIBLE TO BE PROMOTED TO THE POST OF ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH PUBLISHED ON 29.4.2017.** - **EXHIBIT P2(A19) A TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH DATED 15.5.2017.** - **EXHIBIT P2(A20) A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH GIVING FULL ADDITIONAL CHARGE TO B.K.DINESHKUMAR DATED 29.3.2017.** **EXHIBIT P2(A21) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.3.2017. EXHIBIT P2(A22) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT DATED 12.7.2017 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.5203/2017.** - **EXHIBIT P2(A23) A TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 19.6.2017 ALONG WITH THE STATEMENT OF IMPUTATION.** - **EXHIBIT P2(A24) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 15.3.2017 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH.** - **EXHIBIT P2(A25) A TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 23.3.2017.** - **EXHIBIT P2(A26) A TRUE COPY OF THE UNDATED COMPLAINT OF MR.SAJIKUMAR.** - **EXHIBIT P2(A27) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT.** **EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO DATED 8.8.2017 WHICH IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF** **OP(KAT).No.48 OF 2020 13** **OA.NO.1929/2017.** **EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO DATED 26.7.2017 WHICH IS THE SUBJECT TO THE MATTER OF O.A.NO.2240/2017. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE KAT DATED 24.11.2017 BARRING THE FILING OF REPLY STATEMENT.** **EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN MA.NO.2377/2017 IN OA.(EKM)NO.1815/2017 DATED 8.12.2017. EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)NO.26/2018/LSGD, DATED 3.1.2018, ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. (RT)NO.1119/2018/LSGD, DATED 19.4.2018, ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)NO.2107/18/LSGD DATED 1.8.2018. EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O. (RT)NO.2720/2018/LSGD, DATED 24.10.2018, ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED 2ND RESPONDENT DATED NIL FILED ON 28.6.2018. EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.9.019 OF THE HON'BLE KAT. EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO ALONG WITH CONNECTED DOCUMENTS FILED ON 15.10.2019. EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.J-822430/16 DATED 29.12.2017.**