NANDKUMAR Vs. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner while working as Range Officer was placed under suspension. After getting Ext. P5 explanation, Ext. P6 order was passed by the first respondent imposing punishment of bar of one increment with cumulative effect. Even though the petitioner was issued with show cause notice and explanation was called for, no detailed enquiry was conducted regarding the matter. Ext. P5 is the explanation given by the petitioner in this regard. The appeal as well as the Revision Petition filed by him were also dismissed. The contention of the petitioner before this Court is that before imposing major penalty of barring of one increment with cumulative effect, enquiry should have been conducted. It is the contention of the Government that barring of one increment with cumulative effect is a minor punishment for which no enquiry is required. The explanation of the petitioner was considered in detail and a speaking order was passed and it was confirmed in appeal and Revision Petition.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision reported in Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab (1991 Supp. (1) SCC 504) wherein it was held that punishment of barring of increment with cumulative effect is a major penalty under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970. When the case came up before the learned Single Judge of this Court, the learned Single Judge noticed a conflicting decision of this Court in Devaki v. State of Kerala (ILR 1995 (1) Kerala 817) wherein it was held by Justice K.T. Thomas as he then was that the decision in Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab (1991 Supp. (1) SCC 504) is based on the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 and the wordings in Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960 are different. Under the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960 withholding of increment with cumulative effect is only a minor punishment and therefore, no detailed enquiry will be required. But in Sahadevan v. State of Kerala ( 1997 (2) KLT 150 ) a contrary decision was passed following the decision in 1991 Supp. (1) SCC 504 (supra) and held that for withholding of increments of pay with cumulative effect, formal enquiry is necessary.

(3.) The difference between the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960 and Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 are clearly pointed out in Devaki v. State of Kerala (ILR 1995 (1) Kerala 817). We are quoting paragraph 4 of the said decision.