P.K. Sasidharan Pillai v. Director of Panchayats and Others

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE`** ## **`&`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 14TH BHADRA, 1945 ``` ``` OP(KAT) NO. 341 OF 2020 ``` ## **`AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT TA 3902/2012 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** - **`P.K.SASIDHARAN PILLAI AGED 66 YEARS`** ``` S/O. KUNJAN PILLAI, JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT, POOTHADI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, WAYANAD DISTRICT UNDER ORDERS OF TERMINATION, RESIDING A T PEEDIKA THAYYIL HOUSE, KOOTHAPARAMBA P.O. KODUNGALLOOR 680 668. ``` ``` BY ADVS. S.SAJU SMT.NEELANJANA NAIR ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** - **`1 THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004.`** - **`2 THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS ADMINISTRATION, OFFICE OF THE JOINT DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ENQUIRY OFFICER.`** - **`3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS, KALPETTA P.O. WYNAD 680 668.`** - **`4 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004.`** - **`5 THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, KODUNGALLOOR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, 680 664.`** - **`6 THE VANIYAMKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, VANIYAMKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 679 522.`** - **`7 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 679 522.`** - **`BY ADV SRI.V.A.VINOD`** ``` 2 ``` ## **`OP(KAT) NO. 341 OF 2020`** ``` THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` OP(KAT) NO. 341 OF 2020 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Dated this the 5[th] day of September, 2023** ## **`A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE(J)`** ``` Petitioner retired from service as a Junior Superintendent under the Local Self Government Institution. He had attained the age of superannuation on 31.03.2010. He was proceeded for disciplinary action on the allegation of forgery, misappropriation causing loss etc. He was found guilty. Thereafter, he was ordered to be removed from service. He challenged the disciplinary action and imposition of punishment before this Court in the year 2010. On constitution of Kerala Administrative Tribunal, the case was transferred to Kerala Administrative Tribunal. On 20.11.2019, the Administrative Tribunal disposed the case by setting aside the entire disciplinary proceedings with a direction to initiate disciplinary action afresh from the stage of appointment of an enquiry officer. This is questioned by the petitioner ``` ``` OP(KAT) NO. 341 OF 2020 ``` ``` 4 ``` ``` in the writ petition. ``` ``` 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued and submits that the proceedings leading to the disciplinary action itself were vitiated and arbitrary. According to him, the officer acted under the directions of superior authority initiated disciplinary action against him and absolutely there was no prima facie case even for the disciplinary action. It is submitted that, more than a decade lapsed and he has not received his pensionary benefit so far. ``` ``` 3. It is to be noted that the Tribunal set aside the entire disciplinary action and ordered fresh enquiry from the stage of appointment of an enquiry officer. Whether any disciplinary action is warranted or not, cannot be considered by this Court while in a challenge made against the order of Tribunal invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Tribunal found for the reasons stated therein, the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated and ordered fresh enquiry. ``` ``` OP(KAT) NO. 341 OF 2020 ``` ``` 5 ``` ``` This Court cannot now enter into the findings that whether the disciplinary action is warranted or not without assimilating the conclusion of the proceedings. Essentially the attempt of the petitioner is to appraise this Court based on facts. The factual appreciation has to be made by the enquiry officer and disciplinary authority at the appropriate stage. The Court cannot dwell into the factual aspects of the issue and decide validity of the disciplinary action at threshhold. ``` ``` 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Anant R. Kulkarni v. Y.P.Education Society and Ors in Civil Appeal No.3935 of 2013, and argued that the Tribunal, after finding that the entire deparmental enquiry had been vitiated, could not have ordered a fresh enquiry in the matter. It is to be noted in this case that the Tribunal actually had not interfered with the decision of the disciplinary authority, but interfered with the decision making procedure adopted ``` ``` OP(KAT) NO. 341 OF 2020 ``` ``` 6 ``` ``` by the disciplinary authority and noted the defect in the procedure to set aside the decision. It is within the power of the Tribunal to remit back the matter to the disciplinary authority in exercising its power to render a fresh decision after curing the defect noted by the Tribunal. In Anant R.Kulkarni's case (supra), the Tribunal as well as the Court noted on merit that, there is nothing on record to impute charge against the employee therein, questioning his integrity, embezzlement or misappropriation. While taking note of the charges levelled therein, Court found that, on the particular factual situation, fresh enquiry is not warranted. But in this case, the allegations are serious in nature. In such circumstances, this Court cannot find fault with ordering fresh enquiry by the Tribunal. ``` ``` 5. Absolutely, no interference is warranted in this matter. However, taking note of the fact that more than a decade lapsed after the challenge made before this Court and the Tribunal, we order that the ``` ``` OP(KAT) NO. 341 OF 2020 ``` ``` 7 ``` ``` disciplinary proceedings shall be concluded within a period of three months. ``` ``` The Original Petition is disposed of. ``` ``` Sd/- ``` ``` A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE ``` ``` Sd/- ``` ``` SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE ``` ``` RK ``` ``` OP(KAT) NO. 341 OF 2020 ``` ``` 8 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 341/2020`** |**`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`**|| |---|---| |**`ANNEXURE TA1`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF AMENDED`**| ||**`TRANSFER APPLICATION IN TA 3902/2012 FIELD`**| ||**`BEFORE THE HONBLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE`**| ||**`TRIBUNAL AT ERNAKULAM.`**| |**`EXHIBIT P1`**|**`TRUE COPY OF MEMO OF CHARGE DATED 04.07.2007.`**| |**`EXHIBIT P2`**|**`TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS DATED`**| ||**`04.07.2007.`**| |**`EXHIBIT P3`**|**`TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 21.08.2007 TO THE`**| ||**`MEMO OF CHARGES.`**| |**`EXHIBIT P4`**|**`TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 07.02.2009`**| ||**`ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.`**| |**`EXHIBIT P5`**|**`TRUE COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED`**| ||**`24.10.2009 ISSUED THROUGH THE 3RD RESPONDENT.`**| |**`EXHIBIT P6`**|**`TRUE COPY OF REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE`**| ||**`PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED`**| ||**`10.12.2009.`**| |**`EXHIBIT P7`**|**`TRUE COPY OF REPLY TO EXT P6 ISSUED BY THE`**| ||**`PETITIONER DATED 07.01.2010.`**| |**`EXHIBIT P8`**|**`TRUE COPY OF COVERING LETTER ISSUED BY THE`**| ||**`PETITIONER DATED 11.02.2010.`**| |**`EXHIBIT P9`**|**`TRUE COPY OF ENQUIRY REPROT DATED NIL`**| ||**`RECEIVED ALONG WITH EXT P8.`**| |**`EXHIBIT P10`**|**`TRUE COPY OF REQUEST MADE BY THE PETITIONER`**| ||**`TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 09.03.2010.`**| |**`EXHIBIT P11`**|**`TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 23.03.2010 ISSUED TO`**| ||**`THE PETITIONER THROUGH MESSENGER.`**| |**`EXHIBIT P12`**|**`TRUE COPY OF QUOTATION SUBMITTED BY THE`**| ||**`CONTRACTOR DATED 29.01.2004.`**| |**`EXHIBIT P13`**|**`TRUE COPY OF PUBLICATION INVITING QUOTATION`**| ||**`IN THE DESHABHIMANI DAILY DATED 21.01.2004.`**| |**`EXHIBIT P14`**|**`TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY`**| ||**`DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH PALAKKAD DATED`**| ||**`26.02.2005.`**| |**`ANNEXURE A15`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE`**| ||**`SECRETARY, VANIYAMKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH`**| ||**`PALAKKAD DISTRICT DATED 21.04.2017.`**| |**`ANNEXURE A16`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE`**| ``` OP(KAT) NO. 341 OF 2020 ``` ``` 9 ``` ``` APPLICANT TO THE SECRETARY, VANIYAMKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH PALAKKAD DISTRICT DATED 02.05.2017. ``` ``` ANNEXURE A17TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY,VANIYAMKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH PALAKKAD DISTRICT DATED 01.06.2017. ANNEXURE A18TRUE COPY OF THE RECOVERY NOTICE NO. 2018/6916/09 DATED 07.11.2018 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, KODUNGALLOOR TALUK, THRISSUR ``` ``` ANNEXURE A19TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE HOBLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN WPC NO. 39318/2018 DATED 13.12.2018. ``` ``` ANNEXURE TA2TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE HONBLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT ERNAKULAM IN TA 3902/2012 DATED 20.11.2019 ```