Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 33922 of 2010(M)
1. SINDHU RADHAKRISHNAN, W/O. SIVAKUMAR
... Petitioner
2. VINAYA K.S., W/O. MANOJ K.R., AGED
3. SUSEELA NAIR V.A., W/O. H.PRABHAKARAN
4. BIJU M.B., S/O. BALAN M.V., AGED 36,
Vs
1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REP. BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE CHAIRMAN,
3. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS,SC,POLL.C.BOAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :20/12/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 33922 OF 2010
=====================
Dated this the 20th day of December, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Three Assistant Environmental Engineers and a Senior Grade Assistant of the Kerala State Pollution Control Board are the petitioners in this writ petition. They challenge Ext.P15 order dated 30/10/2010 issued by the 1st respondent, Government of Kerala, placing them under suspension pending detailed enquiry against them.
2. The contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is that the conditions of service of the petitioners herein are regulated by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board Disciplinary Rules framed by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board in exercise of its powers under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. According to him, under Rule 7, Chairman of the Board or any authority subordinate to him or any authority empowered by him, alone is competent to place an employee of the Board under suspension. On this basis, it is argued that Ext.P15 is an order without jurisdiction, and on that ground, this order is sought to be quashed. WPC No. 33922/10 :2 :
3. In order to appreciate the contentions raised and to decide whether the impugned order calls for interference, the facts which led to the issuance of Ext.P15, as disclosed from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent, needs to be looked into. It is stated that M/s.Canon Granites Private Limited, the Director of which has got himself impleaded in this writ petition as additional respondent No.4, is functioning within Trichur District from the year 1997. The industrial unit is engaged in crushing of stone boulders obtained from quarries into metal, for which it had installed two new crushing units. The industry sought NOC from the Board through the Trichur District Office. The application was rejected and in WP(C) No.1759/05 filed by the aforesaid company, this Court issued order dated 8/4/05 directing that a trial run be conducted in the premises of the industry for a period of 8 hours to check the pollution levels. It is stated that, thereupon the then Environmental Engineer of Trichur District, Sri.A.K.Surendran was contacted and though this court's order was also produced, no action was taken. Again when contacted, Sri.Surendran informed the additional 4th respondent that they would conduct the test run and issue NOC if his demands for illegal gratification were met, or WPC No. 33922/10 :3 : else, the NOC would not be granted and an adverse report will be made.
4. It is stated that, on 18/5/2005, he demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.15 lakhs and when Sri.Surendran persisted in his demand, the additional 4th respondent submitted a complaint to the CBI. After verifying the allegation, CBI referred the matter to the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau of the State and accordingly, the additional 4th respondent met the DYSP, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Trichur. It is stated that a conversation between the complainant and the Environmental Engineer, in which the complainant was directed to deliver the money in a packet to two persons named by the Engineer at a Hotel on 27/5/2005 was also recorded. However, the complainant expressed his inability to comply with the demand, and therefore, on 28/5/2005, Sri.Surendran, the Environmental Engineer, along with other staff members went to the office of M/s.Canon Granites and informed that they were going to commence the trial run and that if the amount demanded was not handed over by 12 noon, the trial run would be stopped and an adverse report would be made. This again was reported to the Vigilance and Anti Corruption WPC No. 33922/10 :4 : Bureau, which registered VC No.7/05 and trap amount of Rs.2 lakhs was produced by the complainant. It is stated that, as directed by the Environmental Engineer, the trap party went over to Sreebhavan Hotel. The developments that were taking place at the hotel were being monitored by the Environmental Engineer through telephone and as instructed by him, amount was handed over to one Rajendran, who was waiting at the hotel counter. Immediately, Sri.Rajendran and one Sri.Gopalakrishnan, who also waiting along with him, were apprehended by the Vigilance party.
5. It is stated that, immediately on coming to know of the trap laid by the Vigilance authorities, on the night of 28/5/05 itself, the Environmental Engineer made immediate arrangements to see that the staff of the Board attended the office on 29/5/2005, a Sunday and created documents to show that an adverse report had been made against M/s.Canon Granites on 28/5/2005 itself and that the documents were duly despatched on the same day itself to the then Chairman, Member Secretary and also to the then standing counsel for the Pollution Control Board.
6. In so far as the petitioners herein are concerned, the allegation is that, as instructed by the Environmental Engineer, WPC No. 33922/10 :5 : they were at the office on 29.5.2005 along with Senior Accounts Assistant and a Casual Driver and that the 4th petitioner was also called over since he was having one of the keys of the office. It is stated that, on that day, file notings and reports were created dating the documents with 28/5/2005 and an antedated letter was also created and addressed to the standing counsel of the Board with copy to the Member Secretary of the Pollution Control Board. It is stated that these records were signed by the Environmental Engineer and entries were also made in the despatch register to show that these documents were despatched on 28/5/2005 itself. It is stated that the second petitioner read the note sheets and drafted the adverse reports, while the first petitioner and the 3rd petitioner verified and corrected the same. The letter was shown despatched on 28.5.2005 by making interpolations in the Despatch Register. It is alleged that these documents were created only to enable Sri.Surendran to got himself absolved of the trap case.
7. Subsequently, the additional 4th respondent moved this court by filing WP(C) No.19759/05 and by order dated 24/4/2006, the investigation into the case was directed to be entrusted to the CBI. Thereupon, the CBI conducted enquiries, questioned various WPC No. 33922/10 :6 : people, including the petitioners herein and final report was submitted before the Court of Special Judge for CBI cases at Ernakulam on 29/9/09. Later, the additional 4th respondent and one Sri.Muraleedharan filed WP(C) Nos.36185/07 and 36205/07 complaining that inspite of the registration of CBI case and another case before the Vigilance Court, no departmental action was initiated against the Environmental Engineer Sri.A.K.Surendran. According to them, instead of initiating departmental action against him, Sri.Surendran was rewarded by promotion to the post of Senior Environmental Engineer. By a common judgment rendered on 9th of October, 2009, this Court disposed of the writ petitions with various directions to the Government of Kerala including to consider as to whether Sri.A.K.Surendran should be placed under suspension, whether it is necessary to initiate disciplinary action and whether the promotion granted to him is liable to be cancelled.
8. In this context, reference should be made to Exts.R1(b),
(c), (d) and (e), which are allegedly the statements of the petitioners recorded by the investigating officers of the CBI. Ext.R1
(b) is the statement of the first petitioner. This document shows WPC No. 33922/10 :7 : that the first petitioner has stated that, on the night of 28/5/2005, at about 9 p.m. Environmental Engineer, Sri.A.K.Surendran telephoned her in her land line and told her that the additional 4th respondent had set a trap and that she should go to the office immediately in the night itself and make out a report against M/s.Canon Granites and that she told him that it will be done on the next day. It is stated that, thereupon the first petitioner telephoned petitioners 2 and 3 and that in the next morning, she asked the 4th petitioner to open the office. According to her, all of them attended the office on 29/5/2005 and the second petitioner drafted the note sheets and letter to standing counsel with copy to the Member Secretary dating all the documents with 28/5/2005. It is also stated that the first petitioner and the 3rd petitioner made corrections and that one JiJi typed the draft, which was further corrected by petitioners 1 and 3. It is also stated that Jiji made out the final fair letter and that in the Despatch Register, the documents were shown to have been despatched on 28/5/2005. It is also stated that the first petitioner put the file containing the note sheets, fair letter, drafts etc in a plastic cover and send the same through one Dain C.Joseph to Sri.Surendran to put his initials WPC No. 33922/10 :8 : at the appropriate places to make it appear as if the letters were made, signed and despatched on 28/5/2005 during working hours. To a specific question whether she was aware that she was creating false evidence, her response was that she has done it to avoid any harm to Sri.Surendran. Exts.R1(c), (d) and (e) statements allegedly given by the petitioners 2, 3 and 4 corroborates the statement of the first petitioner.
9. It is subsequent to all this that in pursuance to the directions of this Court, the Government issued Ext.P15 order on 30/10/2010 placing the petitioners under suspension. The contents of Ext.P15 throws light not only to the culpability of the then Chairman of Board, but also to the circumstances which compelled the Government to intervene in the matter. Therefore, I think it is profitable to extract Ext.P15 in its entirety and this order reads as under:-
On the basis of the recommendation of CBI in Case No.RC.21(A)/2005/KER against Sri.A.K.Surendran, Senior Environmental Engineer, Kerala State Pollution Control Board, Government vide letter read as 1st paper above directed the Chairman, Kerala State Pollution Control Board to initiate disciplinary action for major penalty against Sri.A.K.Surendran, Senior Environmental Engineer, District Office, Palakkad for obtaining a vehicle hired from Director, M/s.Canon Granites Pvt Ltd., Thrissur for his private visit to Ernakulam on WPC No. 33922/10 :9 : 18.5.2005 and for submitting false Travelling Allowance claim for his visit to Thiruvananthapuram on 27.5.2005 and also for creation of certain documents regarding No Objection Certificate to M/s.Canon Granites Pvt Ltd. Government had also directed Kerala State Pollution Control Board vide the same letter to initiate regular departmental action for minor penalty against Smt.Sindhu Radhakrishan (W-22), Assistant Environmental Engineer, Pollution Control Board, District Officer, Trichur, Smt.Suseela Nair (W-23), Assistant Environmental Engineer, Pollution Control Board, District Office, Ernakulam, Shri.Biju (W-24), Accounts Assistant, Pollution Control Board, District Office, Trichur and Smt.K.S.Vinaya (W-25), Assistant Engineer, Pollution Control Board, District Office, Trichur for manipulating the official records.
As per the proceedings read as 3rd paper above, the Chairman, Kerala State Pollution Control Board issued orders suspending Sri.A.K.Surendran, Senior Environmental Engineer, Palakkad from Board's service.
Even though Government had given clear direction on 25.2.2009, no action was taken by the Chairman, Kerala State Pollution Control Board against the erring officers and only after the intervention of the Government in October 2009, the Chairman, Kerala State Pollution Control Board placed Sri.Surendran under suspension and initiated disciplinary action against him. But no action was still taken by Chairman, Kerala State Pollution Control Board against the other four officers.
In compliance of the judgment read as 2nd paper above, Government had issued directions to the Chairman, Kerala State Pollution Control Board to review the orders of promotion given to Sri.A.K.Surendran the accused officer as it is in violation of the Rules and to decide about the cancellation of his promotion after giving due notice to the officer and hearing him and also following all procedures as per rules within one month.
WPC No. 33922/10 :10 : As per GO(Rt) No.84/2009/Envt dated 24.10.2009, Government had issued orders complying with the directions contained in the aforesaid judgment.
On the basis of the Fax Message received from the Government Pleader, Office of the Advocate General, the relevant files of Kerala State Pollution Control Board regarding disciplinary action was called for perusal. Although disciplinary action against Sri.Surendran was initiated belatedly on 13.10.2009, the disciplinary action against other 4 employees of Pollution Control Board was initiated only on 11/12/2009 that is ten months after getting communication from Government.
The entire disciplinary proceedings against the delinquent employees have been vitiated by procrastination and wilful misinterpretation of findings in the CBI investigation report. Sri.Surendran who was placed under suspension on 13/10/2009 upon initiating disciplinary action on grave charges was reinstated in service on 15/5/2010 without referring to or consulting Government. It is observed that the Chairman himself conducted a personal hearing of the accused officer Sri.Surendran and has dictated the proceedings No.PCB/E4/3800/2009 dt 15.5.2010. Based on the defense statement given by the accused officer and corroborating statements purportedly given by other officers in the Board including the Chairman himself, the Chairman has held that the two allegations regarding false Travelling Allowance claims are not sustainable and that there is no evidence to prove the third allegation regarding tampering of records by the officer in collusion with other 4 employees, thereby virtually exonerating the accused officer of all charges. CBI had found material and oral evidence to prove the tampering of records to protect the accused officer Sri.Surendran with the knowledge and active involvement of the then Member Secretary of the Board and the Government had accepted there findings and awarded the punishment of Censure to the present WPC No. 33922/10 :11 : Chairman who was the then Member Secretary vide G.O.(Rt) No.22/2010 dated 24.3.2010. Under these circumstances the action of Chairman to virtually exonerate the accused officer of the charges smacks of his continuing attempt to protect the accused officer inspite of the grave corruption charges brought against him, which is not under trial in a Court of Law. Chairman has also sought vide para 10 of the said proceedings dated 15.5.2010 to virtually exonerate the 4 subordinate employees working of the Board from the grave charge of manipulation of office records for which disciplinary action was ordered by the Government. Thus the Chairman, Kerala State Pollution Control Board has abused the authority of the Office of the Chairman, by wilfully delaying the disciplinary actions against the 5 employees as directed by the Government and by issuing the proceedings read as 6th paper above, virtually exonerating the accused officers of all charges by disregarding the findings of the CBI investigation report which was approved by Government. He has also not taken any positive action on the direction of the Government to review the promotion given by the Board to the accused officer Sri.Surendran while he was facing grave charges of corruption.
In the circumstances stated above, the order issued by the Chairman, Kerala State Pollution Control Board vide proceedings read as 6th paper above is quashed. Sri.Surendran, Senior Environmental Engineer, Kerala State Pollution Control Board is suspended from the service of the Board under Rule 10 of the KCS (CC&A) Rule with immediate effect pending detailed enquiry into all allegations against him. He will be eligible for subsistence allowance as per rules during the period of suspension.
As the explanation provided by the 4 accused employees of the Board mentioned below to the Memo of charges issued to them are not acceptable, Smt.Sindhu Radhakrishnan, Smt.Vinaya, Smt.Suseela Nair.V.A Assistant Environmental Engineers in the Kerala State Pollution Control Board and Sri.Biju, WPC No. 33922/10 :12 : Assistant, Kerala State Pollution Control Board are also suspended from the service of the Board under Rule 10 of the KCS (CC&A) Rules, pending detailed enquiry. They are eligible for subsistence allowance as per rules during the period of suspension.
10. It is true that going by the provisions contained in Ext.P12, the Kerala State Pollution Control Board Disciplinary Rules, the power to place an employee of the Board under suspension is conferred on the Chairman of the Board or any authority subordinate to him or any authority empowered by him in that behalf. However, in view of the facts of this case as noticed from the counter affidavit, which have not been contradicted by any reply, the question to be considered is whether this is a fit case for this Court to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which admittedly is a discretionary remedy.
11. First of all, this is a case where the Environmental Engineer allegedly demanded illegal gratification and was caught in a trap case. Prima facie material including the statements allegedly made by the petitioners themselves to the investigating officers show that on the directions of the Environmental Engineer, petitioners have created false documents to save him from WPC No. 33922/10 :13 : criminal prosecution. Materials further prima facie show that even the person who was holding the office of Member Secretary of the Pollution Control Board at the relevant point of time himself had a role to play in the whole incident and that by the time this Court disposed of WP(C) No.36185/2007 and 36205/2007 in October, 2009, he had become the Chairman of the Board itself. Ext.P15 order and the pleadings in the writ petition also show that not only that the Chairman had exonerated Sri.Surendran and the petitioners of the allegations against them, but the Chairman had rewarded Sri.Surendran with a promotion. Thus, the Board itself had failed to act in accordance with law to ensure purity in public service and to weed out corruption from its service and thus abdicated its statutory duties. It was in such circumstances, the Government had to step in and interfere in the matter by issuing the impugned order. The question is, whether inspite of such factual background, this Court should interfere with such an order, exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
12. While dealing with this issue, I must also state that even if the allegations in Ext.P15 are to be ignored for a moment, Exts.R1(b), (c), (d) and (e), the statements allegedly made by the WPC No. 33922/10 :14 : petitioners to the investigating officers of CBI, whatever be the worth of it in a Criminal Court, prima facie indicate that the petitioners themselves have admitted of having been parties to the creation of false documents, with the only intention of saving an accused from criminal proceedings. Therefore, if unrebutted, the allegations disclosed in these documents establish the existence of prima facie material, which render the petitioners liable for disciplinary action. In such circumstances, acting upon such materials, if disciplinary proceedings are contemplated and the delinquents involved are placed under suspension, such action of a disciplinary authority cannot be faulted. If so, the only issue is whether inspite of the existence of prima facie case against the petitioners, the impugned order warrants interference for the only reason that it is issued by the Government.
13. Now coming to the question whether this Court should interfere with the impugned order is concerned, I am of the view that, in the facts of this case, this Court shall not interfere with Ext.P15 order. First of all, the Government have ordered suspension of the petitioners only with the intention of ensuring purity in the public office held by them, which primarily, is the WPC No. 33922/10 :15 : responsibility of the State. Secondly, Government was compelled to interfere in the matter on account of the deliberate failure of the authorities of the Board, whose culpability in the matter is evident from the counter affidavit and Ext.P15 itself. Therefore, even if it is assumed that it was the Chairman of the Board which ought to have issued the order and that the Government should not have, in the peculiar facts of this case, I am not persuaded to think that an order issued by the Government should be interfered with for the only reason that the Government did not have competence. If any such order is passed, the result will be that delinquents will remain in a public office and this Court will be enabling them to continue their misdeeds.
14. The manner in which the discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution should be exercised has been indicated by this Court in Ext.R1(f), the judgment rendered in WA No.1436/10 and connected cases, in paras 19 to 21, which are extracted below for reference:-
19. The second submission made on behalf of the Jeyaprasad that a mere allegation of wrong doing cannot disentitle him to seek the constitutional remedy under Article 226 requires an examination. In the normal circumstances, the submission would be unexceptionable. But the consistent reluctance of the WPC No. 33922/10 :16 : State in dealing with Jeyaprasad and Surendran in accordance with law, and in fact that at every stage this Court had to intervene to compel the State to act in accordance with law are factors which distinguish Jeyaprasad for a separate treatment. Apart from that the manner in which Jeyaprasad dealt with Surendran in spite of the serious allegations against him is also a strong factor that should weigh with the Court in deciding whether the discretion should be exercised in his favour. We desist from explaining those factors for the reason that any observation in that regard is likely to have an adverse effect on the investigation of the crime to be registered against Jeyaprasad. Exercising the discretion under Article 226 in a case with such factual background in our view is likely to promote a misconception that the judicial branch of the Constitution is not different from the other branches. No misconception could do more lasting injury to this Court and to the system of law. It is immaterial whether justice is done or not to Jeyaprasad.
20. In the background of the facts narrated above the question arises whether this Court should really exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction vested in it by the Constitution under Article 226 to issue writs or orders in the nature of mandamus or certiorari. It is well settled that both the writs are discretionary in nature but not writs of right. The extraordinary jurisdiction is created for the protection of the fundamental rights of the subjects and to prevent the abuse of the State's power. The jurisdiction is to be exercised either for the enforcement of a legal right of the subject or the enforcement of the legal obligations of the State. Courts have recognised a number of exceptional circumstances which justify the refusal to exercise the jurisdiction even in those cases where there is a clearly established legal right or obligation.
21. We are of the opinion that exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 in favour of a person whose credentials to hold a public office are highly doubtful and who would be disqualified to hold the public office in WPC No. 33922/10 :17 : question if the allegations made against him are investigated and proved before a competent criminal court, would be not a sound exercise of the discretion vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
15. Dealing with identical circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court in Rameshan v. Jayavally (2007(2) KLT 325) held as follows:
12. However, our conclusion on the above issue does not conclude the dispute, if we accept the contention of the appellant on point No. 2. As we have already noted, according to the quashing of Ext.P5 and Ext.P7 would result in restoration of the orders of the Educational Authorities declining approval to his appointment which is per se illegal for other reasons and therefore we should restrain ourselves from exercising power under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. Counsel made reference to various authorities in support of the above proposition canvassed by him. He has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Venkateswara Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1966 SC 828), wherein it has been observed as follows:
"If the High Court had quashed the said order, it would have restored an illegal order - it would have given the Health Centre to a village contrary to the valid resolutions passed by the Panchayat Samithi. The High Court, therefore, in our view, rightly refused to exercise its extraordinary discretionary power in the circumstances", This was followed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case reported in M.Padmanabha Iyyengar v. Government of A.P. (AIR1990 A.P.357) and held as follows:
" It must also be remembered that the remedy under Art. 226 is a discretionary one. The court is not bound to interfere merely on the establishment of an irregularity or illegality. The court must further be satisfied that such interference is called for to meet, or to further, the orders of justice. If by interfering in the matter the interests of justice are going to suffer, this Court will withhold its arm: (See Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah (AIR 1955 SC 425) and Venkateseara Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh ( AIR 1966 SC 828). Having regard to the totality of the WPC No. 33922/10 :18 : circumstances, we do not think that this court should interfere and quash the Inquiry under S.5A."
Still later in the case of Jagan Singh v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal (AlR 1980 Raj. 1, it has been held as follows: "As we have already pointed out above, the effect of setting aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal by a writ of certiorari would be restoring an invalid and illegal order passed by the Regional Transport Authority. Reference may also be made to G.Venkateswara Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1966 SC 828)."
Making reference to R. v. Garland ((1970) 5 QB 269), it was contended that even in issuing writs of mandamus, the same principle is followed and that if the effect of issuing mandamus is going to be highly prejudicial, as where it would enable trustees to evade the discharge of their duties, a court of equity will not issue the writ. These judgments were followed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case reported in Koya v. State of Kerala (1992 (2) KLT 194), where it has been held as follows:
"It is now well settled that if an order of an authority is illegal or without jurisdiction, it need not be quashed by the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India if such action would result in restoration or revival of another order, which is also bad." On this reasoning, this Court concluded in the following terms: "Following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Venkateswara Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1966 SC 828) for exercise of discretion, we hold that this is not a fit case for quashing Ext.P5 order of the Government even if it was without jurisdiction for, such quashing would restore Ext.P4 order of the Wakf Board which is bad for other reasons. This is therefore, not a fit case for exercising discretion to quash Ext.P5." Counsel also made reference to the judgment in Mohammad Swallieh and Ors. v. Third Addl. District Judge, Meerut & Anr. ((1988)1 SCC 40). Paragraph 7 thereof is extracted below for reference:
"It was contended before the High Court that no appeal lay from the decision of the Prescribed Authority to the District Judge. The High Court accepted this contention. The High Court finally held that though the appeal laid (sic no appeal lay) before the District Judge, the order of the Prescribed Authority was invalid and was rightly set aside by the District Judge. On that ground the High Court declined to interfere with the order of the learned District WPC No. 33922/10 :19 : Judge. It is true that there has been some technical breach because if there is no appeal maintainable before the learned District Judge. in the appeal before the learned District Judge, the same could not be set aside. But the High Court was exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court had come to the conclusion that the order of the Prescribed Authority was invalid and improper. The High Court itself could have set it aside. Therefore in the facts and circumstances of the case justice has been done though, as mentioned hereinbefore, technically the appellant had a point that the order of the District Judge was illegal and improper. If we reiterate the order of the High Court as it is setting aside the order of the Prescribed Authority in exercise of the jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution then no exception can be taken. As mentioned hereinbefore, justice has been done and as the improper order of the Prescribed Authority has been set aside, no objection can be taken."
We were also referred to the Supreme Court judgment in the case reported in Roshan Deen v. Preeti Lal (2002 (1) KLT (SC) (SN) 43 = AIR 2002 SC 33), where it has been held as follows: " Time and again this Court has reminded that the power conferred on the High Court under Arts.226 and 227 of the Constitution is to advance justice and not to thwart it, (vide State of Uttar Pradesh v. District Judge, Unnao & Ors., (AIR 1984 SC 1401). The very purpose of such constitutional powers being conferred on the High Courts is that no man should be subjected to injustice by violating the law. The look out of the High Court is, therefore, not merely to pick out any error of law through an academic angle but to see whether injustice has resulted on account of any erroneous interpretation of law. If justice became the byproduct of an erroneous view of law the High Court is not expected to erase such justice in the name of correcting the error of law."
We were also referred to a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2430 of 2002 in which the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court has been followed and it was held that the court cannot erase justice done in the name of correcting error of law.
16. Again in Kerala Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors. v. The Kendriya Vidyalaya Non Teaching Staff Assn. (2007(3) KLJ WPC No. 33922/10 :20 :
717), a Division Bench of this Court has declined to interfere with an order passed without jurisdiction on the ground that by the said order, justice has been done.
17. Taking note of the peculiar facts of this case and the principles laid down in the judgments noticed above, since I am satisfied that interference with the impugned order will only result in grave injustice, I decline to interfere with the impugned order.
Therefore, the writ petition will stand dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp