High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-02-02Petition disposed/dismissed. The writ petition ...

P. V. Suresh Babu v. Union of India and Rubber Board and The Chairman, Rubber Board

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 722 OF 2012

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: AMIT RAWAL
Judgment Date: 2023-02-02
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition dismissed. The High Court held that there was no manifest violation of natural justice or guidelines and that the statutory appellate remedy was properly availed; hence no interference under Article 226.
Final Disposition: Petition disposed/dismissed. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

P. V. Suresh Babu

Respondents

The Union of India
The Rubber Board
The Chairman, Rubber Board

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri D. Kishore
• Smt. Mini Gopinath

Counsels for Respondents

• 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

Case Synopsis & Summary

P. V. Suresh Babu, an Assistant Security Officer at the Rubber Research Institute of India, Kottayam, faced a major penalty after a charge-sheet for using filthy, abusive, and vulgar language with a co-employee, Ashok Kumar. The charges led to a preliminary inquiry, the denial of copies of statements, and the appointment of an Enquiry Officer. Before the enquiry, witnesses were examined, with cross-examination by a legal advocate appointed under Rule 11 of the Rubber Board Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1961. A show-cause notice was issued; the petitioner replied but the Enquiry Officer recommended a major penalties, culminating in Ext.P13 reducing the petitioner's pay for five years, while a co-employee received a three-year pay reduction. The petitioner challenged Ext.P8 (enquiry report), Ext.P13 (penalty order), and Ext.P16 (Appellate Authority's dismissal of the appeal) under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner contended mental harassment as a member of the Scheduled Caste, lack of supply of statements, and lack of parity in punishment with the co-worker. Respondents argued that the charge sheet was more grave for the petitioner and that the enquiry process, cross-examination, and documentary evidence supported the disciplinary outcome. The High Court declined to interfere, citing settled law from Muhammed Sharif, Deekshitha, and Sivabasappa, and held that the writ petition was devoid of merit; the petition was dismissed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Constitution of India, Article 226Rubber Board Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1961Rubber Board Employees Conduct Rules, 1958

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Principle of natural justice
Writ jurisdiction limits in disciplinary matters – non-interference absent violation of natural justice or guidelines
Parity in punishment (equality of treatment)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner submits that he, belonging to the Scheduled Caste, faced mental harassment and fabricated charges after submitting a complaint on 29.11.2006. He contends that the preliminary inquiry did not supply copies of witness statements, that witnesses were examined before the enquiry, and that the punishment shows a lack of parity with a co-worker who received a lesser penalty. He argues violation of natural justice and guidelines governing such disciplinary proceedings, including non-supply of statements and potential bias, warranting interference under Article 226.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the charge sheet was grievous and the enquiry was conducted with due process, including cross-examination of witnesses and consideration of voluminous documents. They argue that the disciplinary authority and the Appellate Authority properly weighed the evidence, and that interference in a routine disciplinary matter is unwarranted under settled law, referencing State of U.P. v. Muhammed Sharif, Kasinath Deekshitha, and State of Mysore & Others v. Sivabasappa to justify deference to the disciplinary process.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
State of U.P. v. Muhammed Sharif	1982 (2) SCC 376	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that writ courts should not ordinarily interfere with disciplinary proceedings after the Enquiry Report where due process has been followed.
Kasinath Deekshitha v. Union of India and Others	1986 (3) SCC 229	Positive	Used to underline that interference under Article 226 is limited and must be grounded in violation of natural justice or guidelines.
State of Mysore & Others v. Sivabasappa	AIR 1963 SC 375	Positive	Authority cited for the principle that disciplinary actions and the process should not be readily disturbed in writ jurisdiction if procedures and evidentiary requirements are satisfied.

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 P. V. Suresh Babu v. Union of India and Rubber Board and The Chairman, Rubber Board 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 AMIT RAWAL`** ``` THURSDAY, THE 2[ND] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 13TH MAGHA, 1944 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 722 OF 2012`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` P.V.SURESH BABU S/O.VASUDEVAN, ASSISTANT SECURITY OFFICER, RUBBER RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF INDIA, KOTTAYAM-9 BY ADVS. SRI.D.KISHORE SMT.MINI GOPINATH ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, UDYOG BHAVAN, NEW DELHI 110 001 2THE RUBBER BOARD REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, P.B.NO.1122, SUB JAIL ROAD, KOTTAYAM 686 002 3THE CHAIRMAN THE RUBBER BOARD,P.B.NO.1122, SUB JAIL ROAD, KOTTAYAM 686 002 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 ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 722 OF 2012 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **JUDGMENT** 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. 2. 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 ``` WP(C) NO. 722 OF 2012 ``` ``` 3 ``` 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. 3. 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 ``` WP(C) NO. 722 OF 2012 ``` ``` 4 ``` 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 punishment 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. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the management – party respondents submitted that the charge sheet served 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 ``` WP(C) NO. 722 OF 2012 ``` ``` 5 ``` 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the reasons laid down in 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** . 5. 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 witnesses 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. 6. It is now settled law that once the report of Enquiry Officer has been deliberated upon by the disciplinary authority and ``` WP(C) NO. 722 OF 2012 ``` ``` 6 ``` 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 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 is devoid of merit, accordingly dismissed. **Sd/AMIT RAWAL JUDGE** nak ``` 7 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 722 OF 2012`** ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 722/2012`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS ``` ``` Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 29.11.2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. ``` - `Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE MEMORANDUM NO.C1/I/2007-VIG. DATED 12.02.2007.` - `Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO EXHIBIT P2 DATED 18.02.2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.` - `Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RUBBER BOARD SERVICE (CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL AND APPEAL) RULES 1961` - `Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RUBBER BOARD EMPLOYEES CONDUCT RULES 1958.` - `Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTES SUBMITTED BY THE PRESENTING OFFICER BEFORE THE ENQUIRY OFFICER ON 19.09.2007.` - `Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTES SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE ENQUIRY OFFICER ON 09.10.2007.` - `Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO.C1/1/2007VIG DATED 06.02.2008 ALONG WITH THE REPORT OF ENQUIRY.` - `Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 29.02.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.` - `Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE CIRCULAR NO.3/24/1/2008/EST DATED 24.07.2008 OF` ``` 8 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 722 OF 2012`** ## `THE LAST RESPONDENT.` - `Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.12.2008 IN W.P.(C) 23537 OF 2008 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.` - `Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.03.2009 IN WRIT APPEAL NO.642 OF 2009 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.` - `Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C1/1/2007-VIG DATED 10.03.2009 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.` - `Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.` - `Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE ARGUMENT NOTES SUBMITTED BY THE` - `PETITIONER ON 20.02.2010 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.` - `Exhibit P16 TRUE 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 P17 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DTED 18.08.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, RUBBER BOARD.` - `Exhibit P18 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.59/1/2010-VIG DATED 10.08.2010 OF THE CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER.` - `Exhibit P19 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 20.09.2010 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR RUBBER RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF INDIA TO THE PETITIONER.` - `Exhibit P20 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS` ``` NO.59/1/2010-VIG DATED 01.09.2010 OF THE ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 722 OF 2012 ``` ``` 9 ``` ``` CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER. ``` ``` Exhibit P21 ``` ``` Exhibit P22 ``` ``` Exhibit P23 ``` ``` Exhibit P24 ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 11.10.2010 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 24.12.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER. ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 25.04.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER. ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 17.12.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER. ```