OP (KAT) No.312 of 2020

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU** **WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1942** ## **OP(KAT).No.312 OF 2020** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 291/2018 DATED 25-02-2020 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVETRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN O.A:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.** - **2 THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM RANGE, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031.** - **3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF ALAPPUZHA, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, IRON BRIDGE, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688011.** ## **BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER** ## **RESPONDENT/APPLICANT IN O.A:** **JOSE A AGED 43 YEARS S/O. ALFRED, SENIOR CIVIL POLICE OFFICER, EAST KALLADA POLICE STATION, EAST KALLADA P O, KOLLAM - 691502, RESIDING AT SOMAVILAS, VELLIMON WEST P O, KOLLAM - 691511.** **R1 BY ADV. SMT.P.RANI DIOTHIMA R1 BY ADV. SMT.REKHA VASUDEVAN R1 BY ADV. SMT.ELIZABETH V.JOSEPH** ## **SRI.B.VINOD, SR.GOVT.PLEADER** **THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** O.P (KAT) No.312 of 2020 2 # **(CR)** # **ALEXANDER THOMAS & K.BABU, JJ.** # **=========================== O.P (KAT) No.312 of 2020** [ _arising out of the order dated 25.02.2020 in O.A No.291/2018 on the file of the KAT, Tvm. Bench_ ], **===========================** Dated this the 17[th] day of March, 2021 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.** The prayers in the aforecaptioned Original Petition filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India are as follows (see page No.8 of the paper book of this O.P) : - _“1. To set aside Exhibit P4 impugned Order dated 25.02.2020 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in O.A No.291/2018._ _2. To issue other reliefs, this Honourable Court may deem fit in the Original Application.”_ 2. Heard Sri.B.Vinod, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners (State of Kerala & two others) in the O.P/respondents in the O.A and Smt.Rekha Vasudevan, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent in the O.P/sole applicant in the O.A before the Tribunal. 3. The prayers in the instant Ext.P1 Original Application, O.A No.291/2018 filed by the respondent herein O.P (KAT) No.312 of 2020 3 before the Tribunal are as follows (see page Nos.23 & 24 of the paper book of this O.P) : - “ _i) Set aside Annexures A3, A4 and A6._ - _ii) Declare that the applicant is entitled to all service benefits as if Annexures A3, A4 and A6 were never issued._ - _iii) Declare that the period of suspension of the applicant from 21.10.2008 to 21.2.2009 is to be treated as duty for all purposes._ - _iv) direct the respondents to treat the period of suspension of the applicant from 21.10.2008 to 21.2.2009 as duty for all purposes and disburse him all consequential benefits, within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Tribunal._ ## _and_ - _v) grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the circumstances of this case including the cost of this Original Application.”_ 4. The Tribunal after hearing both sides, has now rendered impugned Ext.P4 final order dated 25.02.2020 in the above O.A, whereby the impugned disciplinary proceedings at Annexures-A3, A4 & A6 have been set aside and R3 in the O.A (The District Police Chief, Alappuzha) has been directed to pass orders restoring the increment withheld from the applicant and also granting consequential monetary benefits, within two months, etc. and that the period of suspension of the applicant O.P (KAT) No.312 of 2020 4 shall be treated as duty for all purposes, including salary, etc. 5. The applicant is a Civil Police Officer (Driver) serving the police department of the State Government. While serving as Police Driver in the District Armed Reserve **,** Alappuzha, he was suspended from service, as per Annexure-A1 order dated 21.10.2008 issued by the District Police Chief (Superintendent of Police) and he was also later served with memo of charges for the allegations, for which he has been suspended from service. The applicant was reinstated to service on 10.02.2009. It appears that a formal enquiry was conducted by the respondents in the O.A in terms of the provisions contained in the Kerala Police Departmental Inquiries, Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1958 (KPDIP & A Rules, for short) and later, the District Police Chief, as the disciplinary authority, has issued Annexure-A3 penalty order dated 21.10.2009 finding the applicant as guilty of the charges and imposing on him the penalty of barring of one increment with cumulative effect and the suspension period was ordered to be treated as duty only for the limited purpose of pension and gratuity and the emoluments were limited to the subsistence allowance already paid. The applicant submitted O.P (KAT) No.312 of 2020 5 statutory appeal before the appellate authority (Inspector General of Police) in terms of the abovesaid provisions in the abovesaid Rules and the said appeal has been dismissed as per the impugned Annexure-A4 appellate order dated 25.05.2011 issued by the Inspector General of Police confirming the penalty at Annexure-A3. Later, the applicant had also filed review/revision before the competent authority of the State Government in the Home Department. The competent authority of the State Government came to the considered finding that the punishment imposed on the applicant, as per Annexure-A3 as confirmed by Annexure-A4 is too harsh and the charge is only having failed to inform the Motor Transport Officer about the damage of the vehicle was proved, the Government provisionally decided to modify the penalty to barring of one increment without cumulative effect, instead of the imposed penalty of barring of one increment with cumulative effect. Accordingly, the considered views of the Public Service Commission were also sought as part of the consolidated decision process. It appears that the competent authority of the Public Service Commission did not agree with the said provisional O.P (KAT) No.312 of 2020 6 decision of the Government and accordingly, the Government has dismissed the review/review petition, as per the impugned Annexure-A6 G.O (Rt.) No.1273/2017/Home dated 22.05.2017 thus virtually confirming the impugned Annexure-A3 penalty order and Annexure-A4 appellate order. It is these orders at Annexures-A3, A4 & A6 that were challenged by the applicant before the Tribunal. 6. The Tribunal after hearing both sides has found that when the Government wants to reduce the penalty to a minor penalty, then there is no legal compulsion to consult with the Public Service Commission and that therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, consultation made by the State Government with the Public Service Commission, was rather unnecessary. The Tribunal has also found that as per AnnexureA3 memo of charges, only three specific and definite charges were raised against the applicant and that the Government after exhaustive analysis, has made fact findings as per Annexure-A6, wherein it has been found in para No.3 thereof, that all the three distinct charges raised in Annexure-A3 memo of charges are not proved in the disciplinary enquiry proceedings. However, O.P (KAT) No.312 of 2020 7 the Government has taken the view in para No.4 of Annexure-A6 that the applicant has failed in his duty to give timely information to the Motor Transport Officer of the Police Department about the damage caused to the vehicle, etc. 7. Taking note of the said aspects and also the aspect that the Public Service Commission has disagreed to the proposal to reduce the imposed major penalty to a minor penalty, the Government has dismissed the review/revision petition as per the impugned Annexure-A6 order thus confirming Annexure-A3 penalty order and Annexure-A4 appellate order. 8. After hearing both sides, we are of the considered opinion that the view of the Tribunal that in the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no necessity for the competent authority of the State Government to consult with the Public Service Commission, does not reflect the correct legal position. 9. In that regard, it has to be borne in mind that the Government was exercising the powers in terms of Rule 36A of the abovesaid KPDIP & A Rules, 1958. Sub Rule (1) of Rule 36A would stipulate that notwithstanding anything contained in O.P (KAT) No.312 of 2020 8 those Rules, the Government may, on their own motion or otherwise after calling for the records of the case, review any order passed by a subordinate authority, which is made or is appealable under these Rules, after consultation with the Public Service Commission wherever such consultation is necessary. Thus, it can be seen that Sub Rule (1) of Rule 36A would mandate that in such process consultation with the Public Service Commission is to be resorted to wherever it is necessary. The aspects regarding consultation of the State Government with the Public Service Commission are contained in Kerala Public Service Commission (Consultation) Regulation, 1957, framed under Article 320(3) of the Constitution of India. In that regard it has to be borne in mind that the proviso to Clause 3 of Article 320 of the Constitution of India would mandate that the President of India as regards All India Services and also in respect of other services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union of India and the Governor of a State as respect to other services and posts in connection with the affairs of Governor of a State may make regulations specifying the matters in which either generally or in any particular class of case or in O.P (KAT) No.312 of 2020 9 any particular circumstances, it shall not be necessary for a Public Service Commission to be consulted. 10. The provision contained in Clause (4) of Article 320 which discloses consultation with Public Service Commission in matters relating to Article 16(4) of the Constitution and Article 335 of the Constitution, are not relevant and germane in the instant case. In exercising the powers conferred under the proviso to Clause (3) of Article 320 of the Constitution of India, the Government of Kerala has framed the aforecaptioned Kerala Public Service Commission (Consultation) Regulation Act, 1957. Regulation 6(1) stipulates that it shall not be necessary for the Commission to be consulted on any disciplinary matters affecting a person serving in connection with the affairs of the State, except on the matters enumerated in clauses (a) to (c) thereof. 11. It will be pertinent to refer the Regulations 6(1) & 6(2) of the Kerala Public Service Commission (Consultation) Regulation Act, 1957, which reads as follows (the provisions contained in Rule 6(1) & 6(2) are not extracted hereunder, as the same may not be relevant in the present case):- O.P (KAT) No.312 of 2020 10 _“6.(1) It shall not be necessary for the Commission to be consulted on any disciplinary matter affecting a person serving in connection with the affairs of the State, except--_ _(a) Where the Government propose3 to pass an original order imposing any of the following punishments, namely:--_ - _(i) (a) withholding of increment with cumulative effect;_ - _(b) reduction to a lower rank in the seniority list or to a lower stage in a time-scale;_ - _(ii) recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government or to the Central Government or to a local authority by negligence or breach of orders;_ - _(iii) compulsory retirement._ - _(iv) Removal from the civil service of the Government; or_ - _(v) dismissal from the civil service of the Government:_ _(b) where the Government propose to pass an order in appeal or revision [or review] imposing any of the penalties referred to in sub-clause (a);_ _(c) where in any appeal or revision from or review of an order which has imposed any of the penalties referred to in sub-clause (a) Government proposes to pass any order._ _(2) Noting contained in clause (1) shall be deemed to make it necessary for the Government to consult the Commission in any case--_ _(a) relating to the termination of probation of any person before the expiry of the prescribed or extended period of probation or to the discharge of a person after the expiry of such period on the ground that he is unsuitable for full membership of the service;_ _(b) relating to the discharge or reversion of an officer otherwise than as a penalty;_ _(c) relating to the termination of the employment of any person in accordance with the terms of his contract of employment;_ _(d) relating to the imposition of any penalty laid down in_ O.P (KAT) No.312 of 2020 11 _any rule or order for failure to pass any test or examination within a specified time;_ _(e) in which the Commission has, at any previous stage given advice in regard to the order to be passed and no fresh question has thereafter arisen for determination.”_ A reading of Regulation 6(1) would make it clear that Clause (a) of Regulation 6(1) includes within its scope and ambit, the following penalties:- - “ _(i) (a) withholding of increment with cumulative effect;_ - _(b) reduction to a lower rank in the seniority list or to a lower stage in a time-scale;_ - _(ii) recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government or to the Central Government or to a local authority by negligence or breach of orders;_ - _(iii) compulsory retirement._ - _(iv) Removal from the civil service of the Government; or_ - _(v) dismissal from the civil service of the Government:”_ 12. Clause (c) of the proviso to the Regulation 6(1) would make it clear that where the Government proposes to pass an order in appeal or revision from or review of an order which has imposed any of the penalties referred to in sub clause (a) of Regulation 6(1) and where the Government proposes to pass an order in such a scenario, then consultation is made mandatory, O.P (KAT) No.312 of 2020 12 going by the provisions contained in Regulation 6(1). 13. In the instant case, the penalty imposed on the applicant as per the impugned Annexure-A3 penalty order as confirmed by the impugned Annexure-A4 appellate order is the punishment of barring of one increment with cumulative effect which is treated as a major penalty, going by the provisions contained in Rule 15 read with Rule 17 of the KPDIP & A Rules, 1958, inasmuch as penalty of withholding of increments with cumulative effect (enumerated as item (j)(a) of Rule 15 (1) has been brought within the ambit of Rule 17(1)(b) for the purpose of conducting detailed oral enquiry. The said provision as per item (j)(a) of Rule 15(1) & Rule 17(1)(b), has been introduced as per amendment notification published in Kerala Gazette dated 17.03.2010 as per SRO No.275/2010. 14. In the instant case, the applicant was ordered to be suspended from service as per Annexure-A1 dated 21.10.2008 and Annexure-A2 memo of charges has thereafter been issued and Annexure-A3 penalty order has been imposed on 21.10.2009. Therefore, the time when the memo of charges and the penalty order has been imposed on the applicant, which is O.P (KAT) No.312 of 2020 13 the period upto 21.10.2009, the amended provision contained in Rule 15 (1)(j)(a) read with Rule 17(1)(b) had not come into force inasmuch as the said amended provisions come into force only prospectively from 17.03.2010. However, Clause (i)(a) has been introduced to regulation 6(1)(a) of the Kerala Public Service Commission (Consultation) Regulation Act. 1957, as per SRO No.410/2002 published in Kerala Gazette dated 16.05.2002. Thus it can be seen that amendments to Regulation 6(1)(a) by introducing item 1(i)(a) thereto has been made effective from 16.05.2002, which is at a time before the issuance of the memo of charges and the penalty order in this case. Hence, going by the mandate contained in Clause(c) of Regulation 6(1), since the Government is dealing with review/revision in terms of Rule 36A of KPDIP & A Rules in respect of penalty order imposing the penalty of withholding of increment with cumulative effect as conceived in item (i)(a) of Regulation 6(1)(a), consultation of the Government with the Public Service Commission is only to be held as mandatory. Similar view has also been taken by a Division Bench of this Court in the decision in the case in _**State of Kerala & Ors. v. Benny E. & Anr.**_ [2019 (1) KLT SN 87 : O.P (KAT) No.312 of 2020 14 2019 (1) KLJ 809 = 2019 (1) KHC 557 = ILR 2019 (1) Ker. 373]. 15. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal as per the impugned Ext.P4 order that consultation of the State Government with the Public Service Commission before rendering a decision on the review petition filed by the delinquent, was not necessary, in this case, does not reflect the correct legal position and hence the said finding made by the Tribunal stands reversed. 16. Now coming to the facts and circumstances of this case, there is no dispute that only three definite and precise charges were raised against the applicant as per the impugned Annexure-A2 memo of charges. The first charge is to the effect that the applicant was absent from duty without permission for the period from 07.09.2008 to 15.09.2008. The second charge is to the effect that the applicant had caused damages to the Police departmental jeep bearing registration No.KL-01/S-825 due to irresponsible handling. The third and the last charge therein is that the applicant had manipulated the entries in the vehicle diary. No other charges has been raised against the applicant in Annexure-A2 memo of charges. O.P (KAT) No.312 of 2020 15 17. The Government has meticulously considered the entire factual materials available on record and has rendered its fact findings as per the impugned Annexure-A6 order dated 22.05.2017. A reading of Annexure-A6 order would make it clear that after exhaustive analysis and consideration of the evidentiary materials on record, the Government has come to the considered conclusion in paragraph No.3 that all the abovesaid three charges are not proved against the applicant in the abovesaid disciplinary enquiry proceedings. Sub paragraph (a) of paragraph 3 of Anx.A6 deals with first charge and the considered finding made in internal page No.4 of Annexure-A6 is that the abovesaid specific first charge to the effect that the applicant was absent from duty without permission from 07.09.2008 to 15.09.2008, which is without any evidentiary materials on record. 18. In sub paragraph (b) of paragraph No.3 of AnnexureA6, the Government has also conclusively found that the 2[nd] charge that the applicant had caused damages to the departmental jeep due to irresponsible handling, etc., is totally untenable. This is primarily for the reason that it is the admitted O.P (KAT) No.312 of 2020 16 case of both sides that it has been found that the applicant was in fact, on leave for the period from 07.09.2008 to 15.09.2008 due to medical reasons and that therefore the alleged damaged said to have been caused to the jeep on 13.09.2008 had nothing to do with any role of the applicant inasmuch as he was not on duty on that day. 19. The Government has also found in sub paragraph (c) of paragraph No.6 of Annexure-A6 that the 3[rd] charge that the applicant had manipulated the relevant entries in the Police Vehicle Diary, etc. is also untenable and that though it is seen that there was no entries in the vehicle diary for some other days in question, later entries have been made at the instance of the SHO concerned and that it cannot be said that the materials on record would justify the finding that the applicant has done anything deliberately wrong in that regard and that these aspects are all the more clear from the deposition of Prosecution Witness No.1, who deposed in the disciplinary enquiry proceedings. 20. These aspects are crystal clear like the day light from a mere reading of Annexure-A6, more particularly paragraph No.3 given on internal page Nos.3 to 6 of Annexure-A6. O.P (KAT) No.312 of 2020 17 Thereafter, the Government goes on a tangent and holds in paragraph No.4 of Annexure-A6 given on internal page Nos.6 & 7 thereof that the applicant has not made any timely steps to report about the accident and damage caused to the vehicle to the competent officer concerned, (viz., the Motor Transport Officer of the Police department). It is clear from a mere reading of Annexure-A3 memo of charges that no such charge has been raised against the applicant therein. The petitioners herein do not have any case that at any point of time the memo of charges as per Annexure-A2 has been amended in the manner known to law. Since the said charge referred to in paragraph No.4 of Annexure-A6 does not form part of the memo of charges as per Annexure-A2, there is no reasonable opportunity provided to the applicant to defend those allegations. 21. Smt. Rekha Vasudevan, the learned counsel appearing for the original applicant would submit that, as a matter of fact, the applicant had rejoined duty on 16.09.2008 and immediately after coming into know about the damage caused to the vehicle that happened to the incident on 13.09.2008 on a day on which he was absent, he had O.P (KAT) No.312 of 2020 18 immediately thereafter informed the Assistant/Additional Sub Inspector of Police of the Police Station, who is the designated Motor Transport Officer of the said Police Station; but that this information happened to be only oral and he had not given the same in writing. Further, the fact that even the head of the Police Station who is the SHO, was also apprised of the fact is clearly admitted by the Government in sub paragraph (c) of paragraph No.6 of Annexure-A6, wherein it is stated that vehicle entries were later made at the instance of the SHO, etc. and that this aspect would indisputably show that even the head of the police station was fully apprised of the scenario after the applicant had rejoined duty on 16.09.2008, after he had remained on leave for the period from 07.09.2008 to 15.09.2008. Hence, Smt.Rekha Vasudevan, the learned counsel appearing for the original applicant would submit that the said charge mentioned in paragraph No.4 of Annexure-A6 would also without any factual foundation whatsoever, etc. 22. We need not get into that submission made on behalf of the original applicant inasmuch as there is no dispute that the said new allegations is not part of Anx.A2 memo of charges and O.P (KAT) No.312 of 2020 19 since the applicant was not given any reasonable opportunity to defend the said charge, there is no question of holding the applicant guilty of any such charge. Hence the adverse finding is illegal and _ultra vires_ . It is on the basis of this allegation covered in paragraph No.4 of Annexure-A6, which has not been included in Annexure-A2 memo of charges that the Government has ultimately confirmed the impugned Annexure-A2 penalty order and Annexure-A3 appellate order by not interfering with the imposed penalty of barring of one increment with cumulative effect and that too also reciting that the Public Service Commission had disagreed with the proposal of the Government to reduce the penalty, etc. True, that the Public Service Commission has disagreed with the proposal of the Government to reduce the penalty from the imposed major penalty to a lesser penalty of barring of one increment without cumulative effect and the Public Service Commission has disagreed with the said proposal thereby implying that their stand is that no interference is called for as regards Annexure-A2 & Annexure-A3 orders, etc. But the abovesaid crucial aspects that none of the charges framed in Annexure-A2 has been found to be proved even after the O.P (KAT) No.312 of 2020 20 considered fact findings made by the Government as per Annexure-A6, more particularly in paragraph No.3 thereof, has not even be remotely taken into account by the Government while confirming the impugned penalty order and the appellate order. 23. We have already held that the consultation process with the Public Service Commission in this case was necessary as the said consultation process was already effected. True that the Public Service Commission has given its views that the impugned penalty order at Anx.A3 does not deserve any interdiction. But that is not the end of the matter. The government has to thereafter, independently consider its mind and come to a considered conclusion that as to whether the fact findings would justify the findings of guilt and if so, the proportionate punishment or penalty for the proved charges. That aspect of the matter, the government has abdicated its duty in that regard and has mechanically cited that since the Public Service Commission has disagreed with their proposal, they have no other alternative but to confirm the impugned orders at Annexure-A3 and Annexure-A4. The said approach of the Government made in O.P (KAT) No.312 of 2020 21 Annexure-A6 is, to say the least, illegal, _ultra vires_ and taking into the consideration the irrelevant aspects and not taking into consideration the relevant and cardinal aspects of the matter. 24. After hearing both sides, we are of the firm view that the abovesaid fact finding made by the Government at paragraph No.3 of Annexure-A6, more particularly sub paragraphs(a), (b) & (c) thereof, as regards three distinct and separate charges are based on valid appreciation of the factual materials on record and there are valid reasonings for arriving at the conclusions for each of the findings that the charges are not proved in the instant case. The Government has acted taking into consideration the ignorant aspect by holding in paragraph No.4 of the impugned Annexure-A6 that the applicant has not taken timely step to inform the superiors about the damage caused to the vehicle, etc. inasmuch as there is no charges admittedly in Annexure-A2, even otherwise, the said allegation does not appears to have any substance. Accordingly, the matter would require very serious reconsideration at the hands of the Government. 25. The Tribunal has also held in the impugned Ext.P4 final order that the abovesaid findings made by the Government O.P (KAT) No.312 of 2020 22 in paragraph No.3 of Annexure-A6 order are right and proper. We have also independently assessed the said aspects and come to the considered conclusion that the Government has made the correct fact findings in paragraph No.3 of Annexure-A6. The findings made in paragraph No.4 of Anx.A6 are totally irrelevant and not germane for the present disciplinary proceedings in question and cannot be taken into account for the reasons given by us hereinabove. 26. Merely because the Commission has disagreed with the proposal to reduce the penalty, will not absolve the Government from its primary role of deciding as to whether the fact findings would justify the impugned orders and if the fact findings does not justify the same, then there is no question of imposing of any penalty, whatsoever. That cardinal and crucial aspect of the matter has been lost sight of by the Government and hence the decision is vitiated on that account and would warrant interdiction at the hands of this Court in exercising the powers of judicial review and superintendence. Accordingly, we set aside Ext.P-4 final order of the Tribunal dated 25.02.2020, to the extent it finds that consultation with the Public Service O.P (KAT) No.312 of 2020 23 Commission was not necessary. However, we would also uphold the quashment of Annexure-A6 order but we would further order that the review petition/revision petition filed by the original applicant referred to in Annexure-A6 will stand remitted to the competent authority of the State Government in the Home department for consideration and decision afresh. 27. Clause (c) of Regulation 6(2) would indicate that nothing in Regulation 6(1) shall be deemed to make it necessary for the Government to consult with the Commission in any case in which the Commission has, at any previous stage given advice in regard to the order to be passed and no fresh question has thereafter arisen for determination. In the instant case, the consultation with the Public Service Commission has already been duly completed. 28. The factual materials that prevailed at that time and the present time is one and the same. Since the considered views of the Public Service Commission has already been elicited as part of the consultation process in terms of Regulation 6(1) there is no necessity to make any second consultation with the Commission in view of the provisions made in Regulation 6(2)(e) O.P (KAT) No.312 of 2020 24 of the Kerala Public Service Commission (Consultation) Regulations, 1957. 29. Accordingly we would order that the applicant may make any additional written submissions in the matter, which he may do so and address the same to the Additional Chief Secretary/Municipal Secretary to Government, Home Department along with a certified copy of this judgment, within 2 weeks from the date or receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Thereafter, the competent authority of the State Government in the Home department will afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the applicant, either in person or through his authorised representative/counsel, if any, as per his choice and then may render a considered decision as to whether the considered fact findings made in paragraph No.3 of Annexure-A6 would justify the finding of guilty. As already observed hereinabove, we would make it clear that in case, the fact finding does not justify the finding of guilty, then there is no question of imposing any penalty whatsoever and the matter has to be closed. Final orders should be passed afresh on the said review petition /revision petition, by the competent authority of O.P (KAT) No.312 of 2020 25 the State Government in the Home department, without much delay, preferably within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment along with the additional written submissions of the applicant and in the light of the observations and findings in this judgment. The orders and directions of the Tribunal at Ext.P4 will stand modified as above. With these observations and directions, the above Original Petition will stand finally disposed of. ## **Sd/-** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE** **Sd/-** **K.BABU, JUDGE** vgd/Skk//13042021 O.P (KAT) No.312 of 2020 26 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OA NO.291/2018 ALONG WITH EXHIBITS. ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. H1/43839/08A DATED 21.10.2008 OF THE THIRD PETITIONER. ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.H1/41(B)PR/08 A DATED 21.10.2009 OF THE THIRD PETITIONER. ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A2(b)/30/APPEAL/11/ER DATED 25.05.2011 OF THE SECOND PETITIONER. ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION DATED 23.01.2012 FILED BY THE APPLICATION BEFORE THE FIRST PETITIONER. ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.1273/2017/HOME DATED 22.05.2017. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER ON 09.05.2018. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE FIRST PETITIONER ON 15.05.2019. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 25.02.2020 IN THE AFORESAID ORIGINAL APPLICATION. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL**