High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
T.J. ANTONY v. STATE OF KERALA - WP(C) No. 24953 of 2006(U)  RD-KL 1098 (12 October 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMWP(C) No. 24953 of 2006(U)
1. T.J. ANTONY, ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, P.W.D.
For Petitioner :SRI.M.V.BOSE
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.K.DENESAN
O R D E R
K.K. DENESAN, J.= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No.24953 OF 2006 U = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 12th October, 2006
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner belongs to the cadre of Asst. Engineer in P.W.D. He has sought for a writ of certiorari quashing Ext. P11 memo of charges and for a direction to include his name in the select list to be prepared by the D.P.C. and to consider his case for promotion as Asst. Executive Engineer in accordance with the place assigned to him in Ext. P6 list.
2. Ext. P11 is memo of charges issued by the Government
on 18-7-2006 alleging misconduct on the part of
petitioner and calling upon him to submit his written
statement of defence. The charge framed against
"That you Shri. T.J. Antony, while working as Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department NH Bypass Section have, in the work "Construction of building to Mukkom community
health centre under RCH programme."
i) failed to supervise the work properly and sincerely, ii) failed to fix the washbasins as per the specification in the estimate, iii) recorded bogus measurements in respect of the thickness of yard concrete and wall WPC No. 24953/06 -2- foundation, and iv) caused a loss of Rs.36,152/-" The petitioner has filed his written statement of defence as per Ext. P12 denying the charges. Ext. P6 is the list of Asst. Engineers (Graduates) likely to be placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee for the preparation of the select list for promotion to the post of Asst. Executive Engineers for the year 2003.
3. The prayer made by the petitioner to quash Ext. P11 is not founded on good grounds. There is no case for the petitioner that the memo of charges is vitiated for want of jurisdiction. The contention is that the petitioner is innocent. It is not proper for this Court to examine, at this stage, whether the allegations levelled against the petitioner in Ext. P11 are true or not. Those are matters within the province of the competent statutory authorities to deal with based on materials available on record and to be brought on record during the course of the disciplinary proceedings. The prayer to quash Ext. P11 is premature, misconceived and liable to be rejected. I do so.
4. Ext. P6 is a non-statutory list of officers whose cases are likely to be placed before the D.P.C. and not a WPC No. 24953/06 -3- select list notified in terms of Rule 28(b)(1) of K.S. & S.S.R. Hence, the inclusion of the name of the petitioner in Ext. P6 will not confer any right on him.
5. The prayer made by the petitioner for a direction to include his name in the D.P.C. list in accordance with his seniority cannot be allowed in view of the fact that the right of each and every feeder category member to be selected for the higher post will depend on his fitness to be included in the select list based on materials to be placed for the consideration of the D.P.C. It is the duty of the D.P.C. to consider the case of all persons who would come within the field of choice. Without undergoing the above ordeal, the petitioner cannot seek a direction to straightaway include his name in the select list or to promote him. Hence, any direction to the D.P.C. to include the name of the petitioner in the D.P.C. list cannot be granted. The said prayer is declined.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates that the petitioner is innocent, and further, that he is even prepared to remit a sum of Rs.7,230/- towards his share of the alleged loss of Rs.36,152/- and that the respondents may be directed to drop all further proceedings accepting WPC No. 24953/06 -4- the above offer made by the petitioner. I am unable to accept the above submission made by counsel for the petitioner. If at all, the disciplinary proceedings can be dropped on receiving some amount as stated above, it is a matter for the disciplinary authority to consider and take appropriate decision. There is no legal obligation cast on the disciplinary authority to accept such offers and drop disciplinary proceedings. This Court will not be a party to any such arrangement based on the present offer made by the petitioner. The reliefs sought for by the petitioner are far fetched, misconceived and deserve to be rejected at the threshold.
7. Govt. Pleader, on instruction, submits that the disciplinary proceedings initiated as per Ext. P11 will be finalised within six months from today. This submission is recorded. The writ petition is dismissed subject to the above observation. K.K. DENESAN
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.