High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
JOHNSON PETER v. STATE OF KERALA - OP No. 17384 of 1999(T)  RD-KL 11106 (25 June 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMOP No. 17384 of 1999(T)
1. JOHNSON PETER
1. STATE OF KERALA
For Petitioner :SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.O.P.Nos.17384, 17398, 17405 & 17465 OF 1999
Dated this the 25th day of June, 2007
Petitioners were working in the Fire Force in Kannur. All of them faced disciplinary proceedings on the same counts. The allegation was that they and another committed dereliction of duty in connection with the rescue operation following an information that a person has fallen into a well. On the basis of the fact that came out of the well ultimately was the dead body, it is submitted that it was essentially a recovery action.
2. The disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners ended up in the imposition of reduction in their pay by one stage for one year, a major penalty in terms of Rule 9 (1)(v) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960.
3. After the conclusion of the enquiry, the disciplinary authority came to the tentative decision as regards the OP.17384/99 & con. cases Page numbers punishment to be imposed and directed the delinquent officials to show cause as to the proposed punishment. In answer thereto, it appears that the delinquent officials showed causes against the findings rendered against them as also on the question of the proportionality of the punishment proposed. But then, as per the impugned order of the Commandant and that on their appeal before the Government, there is apparently no consideration of the objections of the petitioners as regards sustainability of the findings of the enquiry officer. If the findings of the enquiry officer were considered by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority with reference to the objections raised by the petitioners to such findings, the defect of any absence of pre-decisional hearing on the question of the findings, before entering on the question of imposition of punishment, would not have been there. But in the case in hand, there is no consideration of the objections as to the findings and therefore, the satisfaction of the situation by post decisional hearing has also not been rendered. OP.17384/99 & con. cases Page numbers
4. In the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned orders of the
Government, confirming the punishment imposed on the
is set aside. The Government will, following this
judgment, re-hear the petitioners on their appeals and consider
as against the findings of the enquiry authority
as also on their objections as regards the punishment proposed
to be imposed
on them. Let such decision be taken after hearing
the petitioners, within a period of four months from the date of
of a copy of this judgment. The orders regarding the
period of suspension of the petitioners will also be re-considered
The writ petitions are disposed of with the above directions.
OP.17384/99 & con. cases
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JO.P.NOs.17384, 17398, 17405 & 17465 OF 1999
25TH JUNE, 2007.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.