Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
PETITIONER:
UNION OF INDIA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
K.A. KITTU AND OTHERS
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/11/2000
BENCH:
V.N. Khare, & S.N. Phukan.
JUDGMENT:
PHUKAN, J.
L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......J
In this appeal by special leave, Union of India has
assailed the judgment of the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench passed in Original Application
No.956 of 1994.
Briefly stated the facts are as follows.
The respondent was holding the post of Cardamom
Settlement Officer, Devicolam, Kerala during the period
from 7.12.1982 to 14.7.1985. While working in that
capacity he gave sanction to three persons for felling of
trees for the purpose of letting in sufficient sun light
in their cardamom plantation subject to certain
conditions including permissions to be obtained from the
Forest Department. There is no dispute that during the
period while the respondent was serving in the said
capacity no felling of trees took place. After the
transfer of the respondent from that post, due to felling
of trees there was public out cry and an inquiry was
conducted; respondent was put under suspension and
thereafter departmental proceeding was drawn up against
him on four charges. The Inquiry Officer held that
charges No.1 and 2 were partially proved and charges No.3
and 4 were fully proved. The report was accepted and as
during the period of inquiry the respondent retired from
service the penalty of reduction of 50% of pension was
imposed. The application filed by the respondent before
the Central Administrative Tribunal was allowed by the
impugned judgment and hence the present appeal.
We quote below the four charges and the findings of
the Inquiry Officer:@@
JJJJJJJJ
1. That you, Sri K.A. Kittu, IAS, while holding
charge of the post of Cardamom Settlement Officer,
Devicolam, (1) by proceeding No.A2-588/84 dated
10-10-1984 issued sanction for felling of 660 trees in
26-5-hs. Of Cardamom Estate at Kurisupara in Pallivasal
Unreserve, in Sl. Nos. 1393 & 234 of Palliasal village,
to Sri Thomas Sebastian, Karipparambil, Kottayam for the
ostensible purpose of shade regulation in the Cardamom
Plantation, treating the said Thomas Sebastian and two
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5
others for whom he held power of attorney, as lessees
of the land after conferring on them the status of lease
offerees in a contrived manner in collusion with the
Special Deputy Tehsildar, Cardamom Settlement, Devicolam
(Sri K. Ramakrishnan), acted without jurisdiction and in
an extraordinary way, altogether by passing the Assistant
Settlement Officer, Kumily, who is the primary statutory
authority for lease of Government land for Cardamom
cultivation including grant of permission for felling of
trees under rules 7 to 9 of the Rules for lease of
Government lands for Cardamom Cultivation, 1961.
2. by letter No.A2-588/84 dated 25-9-1984 addressed
to the said Sri Thomas Sebastian demanded Cardamom dues,
as defaulters, fixing the amount of arrears as
Rs.69,154/- for the period from 1954 to 1984, got it
remitted, thereby to bring him and the two others he
represented, within the definition of lessee under rule
2(e) of the Cardamom Lease Rules and for permitting
felling of trees, though no demand had been raised or
communicated to the parties previously in Form VI, leave
alone issue of formal lease in Form VII prescribed under
the Cardamom Lease Rules by the statutory authority, viz.
the Assistant Settlement Officer, and this was done when
the stay order issued by Government in communication
No.12252/E3/80/RD dated 7-3-1980 against regularisation
of encroachments on Government Lands was in force.
3. handled your office file No.A2-588/84 right
through at your personal level and issued proceedings
dated 10-10-1984, 12-12-1984, 15-2-1985, 19-2-1985 and
27-2-1985 regarding felling of trees etc. prescribing
conditions which would appear to safeguard the interest
of Government, but actually intended to extend to the
said Sri Thomas Sebastian undue benefits/wrongful gain by
permitting felling of 660 trees, mostly superior species,
first identifying the trees and then marking them on the
ground for making available to him trees of high value
and fixing the value of timber at Rs.31,06,800/-, the
lowest rates of the Forest Department viz. the
seigniorage rates as well as the minimum rates prescribed
under the Kerala Forest Produce (Price Fixation) Act and
also in violation of Government orders in G.O.(P)
185/65/RD dated 12-3-65 regarding valuation of trees, the
under-valuation being to the extent of about Rs.82 lakhs,
excluding the value of an estimated quantity of 5000
tones of fire-wood that would become available on account
of felling of trees, the value thereof being Rs.3.5 lakhs
even at the seigniorage rate of Rs.70/- per tone.
4. permitted Sri Thomas Sebastian to start felling
of trees after realising Rs.3 lakhs as advance and a
Security Deposit of Rs.50,000/- whereas according to the
Forest Department procedure, felling will be permitted
only after remittance of 1/3rd of the estimated value.
Findings of the Inquiry Officer:
My finding with regard to charges (1) and (2) are
while we cannot blame him for collection of premium and
pattom and for treating Shri Thomas Sebastian and two
others as would be lessees and cannot also blame him
for the so called contrivance of a status of lease
offeree because of the rulings of the various High Court
Judgements quoted, nevertheless his action in giving the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5
sanction for shade regulation when he did not have the
power, cannot be regarded as regular and correct. On the
contrary, it is without jurisdiction. It is motivated
and actuated by ulterior motives. To that extent, the
charges are proved. (emphasis supplied)
My findings are that the Member of Service has not
safeguarded the interest of the Government and the
conditions stipulated and method adopted are all for the
benefits of Shri Thomas Sebastian and two others; and
there has been gross under-valuation which would have
caused substantial and wrongful loss to the Government.
He has also failed to apply the rules concerning
remittances. In these circumstance, the charged (3) and
(4) are fully proved. (emphasis supplied)
As already stated above, the felling of trees took
place after the respondent was transferred from the post
of Cardamom Settlement Officer on 14th July, 1985. It is
interesting to note that the State Government stayed the
order of felling of trees on 11th September, 1985 but for
reasons best known the stay order was vacated. During
the pendency of this appeal, the delinquent officer died
and as stated by learned counsel for the respondent all
the entitlements of delinquent officer have been paid to
his legal representatives.
We have heard Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned Additional
Solicitor General for the appellant and Mr. K.
Sukumaran, learned senior counsel for the respondent.
On behalf of the appellant it has been urged that the
Tribunal acted as an Appellate Court which is erroneous
in as much as in exercising power of judicial review the
Tribunal could not have re-appreciated the evidence on
record. It has also been urged that it is not a case of
no evidence and therefore the Tribunal ought not to have
interfered with the finding of the Inquiry Officer.
In reply the learned senior counsel for the
respondent has urged that the Tribunal in the impugned
judgment clearly noticed by referring to the decisions of
this Court the power of judicial review by the Tribunal.
It has also been contended that Tribunal rightly held
that the inquiry report was bad in law, in as much as
evidence of all the witnesses examined by the delinquent
officer was not at all considered by the Tribunal.
On perusal of the judgment we find that Tribunal also
held that Inquiry Officer was biased and also there was
violation of principle of natural justice.
The Tribunal before proceeding to examine report of
the Inquiry Officer rightly took note of the fact that
Tribunal cannot review the report of the Inquiry Officer
if there are relevant materials on record and the
findings of the Inquiry Officer are based on such
material facts. We further find from the impugned
judgment that the Tribunal mainly considered the
contradictory findings of the Inquiry Officer.
Therefore, the submission of the learned senior counsel
for the appellant has no force.
Regarding charges No.1 and 2 the Inquiry Officer held
that respondent could not be blamed for collection of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5
premium and pattom and for treating Thomas Sebastian and
two others as would be lessee but found fault in the
action of the delinquent officer in giving sanction as he
had no jurisdiction. It was further held that it was
motivated and actuated of ulterior motives. According to
the Tribunal the above finding regarding motive was based
on no evidence and in this connection the Tribunal quoted
the following observation of the Inquiry Officer namely
Unfortunately, there are no evidences to show that his
action can be directly relatable to any material gains.
We have perused the report of the Inquiry Officer and we
find that Tribunal is right in holding that above finding
regarding motive is based on no evidence.
the action of Referring to the finding of the Inquiry@@
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Officer that the respondent in entertaining the@@
IIIIIIIIIIIIII
application and taking action for the purpose of issuing
sanction is irregular ab initio, the Tribunal held that
the Inquiry Officer did not record any finding that the
sanction order was illegal. In another place the Inquiry
Officer found that action of the respondent could not be
regarded that it was in public interest and was motivated
and suspicious. Referring to this finding the Tribunal
held that there was no evidence at all regarding
suspicion and, therefore, rejected this finding and in
our opinion it was rightly done. We may add here that in
the subsequent paragraph of the judgment, the Tribunal
also pointed that regarding jurisdiction for granting
sanction there is no clear finding that it was illegal
and motivated.
Second finding of the Inquiry Officer that respondent
did not safeguard the interest of the government in as
much as conditions stipulated and methods adopted were
for the benefits of Shri Thomas Sebastian and two others
and that there was under valuation of the trees which
would have caused substantial wrongful loss to the
government, is based mainly on the ground that the
respondent ought to have taken the opinion of an expert.
In this regard the Tribunal has rightly pointed out the
contradictory finding in the Inquiry Report. At one
place it was observed that being a layman without any
background in cardamom cultivation respondent ought to
have relied upon some expert in the field but at another
place in report the Inquiry Officer recorded that
respondent had been associated with his work for a long
time and naturally he would have known the background and
history of cardamom plantation. This finding of the
Tribunal is absolutely correct. We may add here that as
stated above no felling of trees took place while the
respondent was holding the post and the sanction order
was also stayed by the State Government. Therefore,
there was no actual loss of revenue due to the action of
the respondent.
The Tribunal also found fault with the report of the
Inquiry Officer as except evidence of one witness the
evidence of other two witness of the respondent was not
at all considered by the Inquiry Officer.
For the reasons stated above the appeal is without
any merit and accordingly it is dismissed. Costs on the
parties.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5