V.R. Sanakara Pillai and T.L. Cyriac vs Chief Conservator of Forests (Administration), State of Kerala, represented by the Chief Secretary, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram, and The Assistant Conservator of Forests, Social Forestry Division, Vellappara, Painavu P.O., Idukki

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1939 **OP(KAT).No. 91 of 2018** AGAINST THE ORDER IN TA 763/2012 of KERALA ADMINISTRATIVETRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 11-07-2017 PETITIONERS/APPLICANTS: 1. V.R. SANAKARA PILLAI, S/O. RAMAN PILLAI, FORESTER, SOCIAL FORESTRY RANGE OFFICE, EDAVETTY PO., THODUPUZHA, KERALA (RESIDING AT VAZHAYIL, KUDAYATHUR P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI-685 590) 2. T.L. CYRIAC, S/O. LUKA, FORESTER, SOCIAL FORESTRY RANGE OFFICE, MUNNAR, KERALA, RESIDING AT CHATHAMVELIL THARAPPEL HOUSE, KIDANGOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM 686 572. BY ADVS.SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR SRI.JELSON J.EDAMPADAM SMT.R.RANJANA RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (ADMINISTRATION) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAP7RAM -695 001. 3. THE ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION, VELLAPPARA, PAINAVU P.O. IDUKKI – 685 560. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. P.N. SANTHOSH. THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **OP(KAT).No. 91 of 2018** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:** EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF W.P.(C)No. 14449/2006 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2[nd] RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C)14449/2006. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.07.2017 IN T.A.No.763/2012 OF THE HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE. ## **P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON & DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JJ.** .............................................................................. ## **O.P(KAT)No.91 of 2018** ......................................................................... **Dated this the 2[nd] March, 2018** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.** Interference declined by the Tribunal with regard to the findings in the disciplinary proceedings and the punishment of barring of two increments with cumulative effect, is the subject matter of challenge in this Original Petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader at length. 3. The petitioners were serving as Foresters in the Kerala Social Forestry Office at Munnar, who were proceeded against in respect of the alleged misconduct in having submitted a report pursuant to an application submitted by the PWD for cutting certain trees standing on the side of the road, for the alleged widening of the road. It was pursuant to the said request, that a report was submitted by the officers, virtually enabling the authorities to proceed further and leading to 'cutting permits' **2** ## **O.P(KAT)No.91 of 2018** issued in this regard. The factual position discussed reveals from the subsequent proceedings is that the trees, which were standing in the Plantation/Reserve Forests were cut and removed, which aspect was not verified or reported by the officers concerned, in turn leading to the delinquency on the part of the officers, which was sought to be proceeded against. It was accordingly that, a Show Cause Notice was issued, calling for explanation, followed by a domestic enquiry. 4. After completion of the enquiry, an enquiry report was submitted. A copy of the report was admittedly served on the employees, as borne by Annexure-A11. On receipt of the same, explanation was submitted by the petitioners as borne by Annexures A12 and A13. After considering the same, the disciplinary authority concurred with the findings of the enquiry officer, arriving at the guilt of the delinquent employees, in turn imposing a punishment of barring of two increments with cumulative effect, as borne by Annexure A14. Met with the **3** ## **O.P(KAT)No.91 of 2018** situation, the petitioners preferred statutory appeals before the second respondent, as borne by Annexures A15 and A16. The matter was considered by the appellate authority, who declined interference, as per Annexure A18 order dated 31.10.2005. This was subjected to challenge by the petitioners in W.P(C)No.14449 of 2006 before this Court. In the due course, the same came to be transferred to the Tribunal pursuant to constitution of the Tribunal, where it was re-numbered as T.A.763/2012. After hearing both the sides, the Tribunal made a threadbare analysis of the facts and figures and declined interference as per Ext.P3, which is now sought to be challenged in this Original Petition. 5. The learned counsel, during the course of hearing, in support of the contentions, calling for interference by this Court, submitted that the course pursued by the authorities concerned and also by the Tribunal is contrary to the law declared by the Supreme Court in _**Union of India vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan**_ **(AIR 1991 SC 471).** The said case, which is a celebrated **4** ## **O.P(KAT)No.91 of 2018** judgment, is an authority as to the necessity to serve a copy of the enquiry report upon the delinquent employee and as to the further course of action, if at all there is any infringement in this regard. The matter was subsequently considered by a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in _**Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad vs. B. Karunakar**_ ( **AIR 1994 SC 1074** ). The question considered by the Apex Court is clearly discernible from paragraph 2, where some incidental questions were also dealt with, which are reproduced below for consideration: “ _. The basic question of law which arises in these matters is whether the report of the Inquiry Officer/authority who/which is appointed by the disciplinary authority to hold an inquiry into the charges against the delinquent employee is required to be furnished to the employee to enable him to make proper representation to the disciplinary authority before such authority arrives at its own finding with regard to the guilt or otherwise of the employee and the punishment, if any, to be awarded to him. This question in turn gives rise to the following incidental questions:_ _(i) Whether the report should be furnished to the_ **O.P(KAT)No.91 of 2018** **5** _employee even when the statutory rules laying down the procedure for holding the disciplinary inquiry are silent on the subject or are against it?_ _(ii) Whether the report of the Inquiry Officer is required to be furnished to the delinquent employee even when the punishment imposed is other than the major punishment of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank?_ _(iii) Whether the obligation to furnish the report is only when the employee asks for the same or whether it exists even otherwise?_ _(iv) Whether the law laid down in Mohd. Ramzan Khan's case (AIR 1991 SC 471) (supra) will apply to all establishments- Government and non-Government, public and private sector undertakings?_ _(v) What is the effect of the non-furnishing of the report on the order of punishment and what relief should be granted to the employee in such cases?_ _(vi) From what date the law requiring furnishing of the report should come into operation?_ _(vii) Since the decision in Ramzan Khan's case (AIR 1991 SC 471) (supra) has made the law laid down there_ **6** ## **O.P(KAT)No.91 of 2018** _prospective in operation, i.e., applicable to the orders of punishment passed after 20th November, 1 990 on which day the said decision was delivered, this question in turn also raises another question, viz., what was the law prevailing prior to 20th November, 1990?”_ 6. While considering the said issue, various aspects were dealt with and opinion was expressed in the context to an appropriate extent, which, according to us, does not support the case of the petitioners in the Original Petition, so as to call for interference. The basic point to be looked into is whether any violation of principles of natural justice or any relevant provisions of law /norm in this regard has been committed or is there any mischief at the hands of the departmental authorities in finalising the proceedings, by passing Annexure A14 order, followed by Annexure A18. These aspects have been subjected to threadbare analysis by the Tribunal as mentioned above, leading to Ext.P3 verdict. 7. The fact adjudication has been conducted at different **7** ## **O.P(KAT)No.91 of 2018** levels and the matter has been considered by the Tribunal as well. We do not find any tenable ground, in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to call for interference. The Original Petition fails and the same is dismissed accordingly. **P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE** **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE** lk