DY DIRECTOR GENERAL NCC Vs. GOPINATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W.A. No. 1627/04 is filed by the State. The other Writ Appeal is by the Writ Petitioner.

(2.) The writ petitioner faced disciplinary action. It ended in Ext. P-10 order dated 30-12-1999 imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement from service. This order was passed after due enquiry. Ext.P-11 is the enquiry report. The allegation was that, he assaulted his superior officer, while in office, on 22-5-1996 with a table lamp causing injury on the head of the superior officer. The writ petitioner had his own version that it was the superior officer who made assault on him. But on the basis of the materials placed in record, the enquiry officer found the writ petitioner guilty and this resulted in , Ext. P-10 order. Several contentions were raised in the Writ Petition including the delay in finalisation of the enquiry proceedings. It was also contended that though he had been supplied with a copy of the enquiry report along with the show cause notice proposing a penalty tentatively, he was not served with a copy of the same again, along with final order. This contention was urged relying on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar . His further contention was that Ext. P-10 order was illegal in so far as the disciplinary authority did not consult the Public Service Commission as enjoined in Rule 15(12)(ii)(a) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1960. The learned Single Judge as per the judgment impugned in W.A.No. 1627/04 found that enquiry officer had considered the entire materials placed on record during the course of enquiry to arrive at his conclusion that the writ petitioner had assaulted his superior officer as alleged and that the findings of the enquiry officer were justified. When the enquiry officer has found the delinquent guilty based on the evidence on record, no court will interfere under Article 226 unless it is shown that the finding is so perverse or that it was based on no evidence. Examination of Ext. P-11 report by the learned Single Judge as revealed from the judgment impugned disclosed that there were materials before the enquiry officer to arrive at a conclusion of guilty of the Writ Petitioner.

(3.) The alleged delay in finalising the disciplinary action in spite of the direction fixing time frame by this Court was also not accepted by the learned Single Judge. Ext.P-5 judgment wherein the time frame was fixed was assailed by the writ petitioner himself in W.A. No. 1714/98. Moreover pending disciplinary action he had also been reinstated in service. Therefore, the delay did not in any manner prejudice him, even though the enquiry was beyond the time frame fixed by this Court.