VISWANATHAN.K.C Vs. D. PAPPACHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN 1987, the petitioner applied for selection by the Public Service Commission for appointment as a last grade employee in the department of Agriculture of the Government of Kerala. Later, he got inter-department transfer to the Judicial department, and was appointed as Lower Division Clerk in 1989 was in course of time promoted as Amin. While he was so working, the vigilance department of the High Court of Kerala received an anonymous complaint (which forms part of Ext. P11 produced by the petitioner) that the petitioner was a deserter from the army, was court martialled and was sentenced to imprisonment, which the petitioner had not disclosed at the time of applying for selection to the PSC and also at the time of police verification. The Vigilance Department of the High Court of Kerala got the complaint enquired through the Dy.S.P. attached to that Department, who submitted a report finding substance in the allegations against the petitioner. Based on that report, the Registrar (Vigilance) of the High Court of Kerala submitted another report (which also forms part of Ext. P11 produced by the petitioner) reporting to the Chief Justice about the result of the enquiry conducted by the Dy.S.P. The District Judge, Ernakulam, who was the disciplinary authority of the petitioner, by Ext. P1 order, appointed an enquiry officer, an Additional District Judge, who issued a memo containing the charges against the petitioner directing him to submit his statement of defence, and after receiving the statement of defence, in which the petitioner denied the charges, conducted an enquiry and submitted Ext. P5 enquiry report, in which the petitioner was found guilty of non-disclosure of his imprisonment and consequent disqualification. On receipt of the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority forwarded the copy of the report to the petitioner along with Ext. P6 notice to show cause why the punishment of dismissal from the civil service of the Government, which shall be a disqualification for future employment should not be imposed on him. After considering Ext. P7 reply filed by the petitioner, the disciplinary authority, by Ext. P8 order, imposed on the petitioner the penalty of dismissal from service. The petitioner filed Ext. P9 appeal against the order of punishment, which was dismissed by Ext. P10 order. It is challenging the said disciplinary proceedings the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that the enquiry is vitiated by principles of natural justice and that the charges levelled against the petitioner has not been proved with any acceptable evidence on record. The petitioner raises the following contentions in support of his case:

(3.) AT the outset, I must note that in the matter of testing the validity of administrative and quasi-judicial action on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, as per the decisions of the Supreme Court, the watch-word is 'prejudice'. The mere violation of principles of natural justice, by itself, will not vitiate the impugned action, unless prejudice to the person complaining of the violation, on account of such violation, is also proved by him. This law is well settled by various decisions of the Supreme Court on the subject. Reference to the said legal position is available in the decisions of Managing Director ECIL V. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727 and State of U.P. V. Harendra Arora & anr. (2001) 6 SCC 392, which have been cited before me also. It is all the more so in this case since, admittedly, in the court martial proceedings, the petitioner was imposed the punishment of imprisonment and the petitioner himself had produced a clarification in respect of the endorsement in his discharge certificate to the effect that as per paragraph 168 (c) of the Regulations for the Army, 1987, any person who is dismissed from the Army is not eligible for further employment in Government service. Therefore in view of the Army Regulations the petitioner is not eligible for appointment in Government service at all. Therefore the other questions raised by the petitioner are merely academic.