G L SUBRAMANIAM Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS COCHIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by special leave. The appellant was a Peventive Officer, Grade II, Customs Office, Cochin from June 16, 1962 to January 31, 1963. In April, 1962, he applied to the Assistant Collector of Customs, seeking permission to allow his wife to run a taxi service. He was informed that no permission was necessary for his wife to operate a taxi service but he should not canvass any business for his wife. Thereafter, it is said that the appellant acting on behalf of his wife purchased some cars which were used as taxis. It appears that there were several complaints against the appellant to the effect that he was canvassing business for his wife. Those complaints were enquired into. Thereafter on March 25, 1963 the appellant was served with a memorandum stating that while functioning as Preventive Officer, Grade II, Cochin Customs House, during the period June 1962 to January 31, 1963 he had contravened the provisions of Rule 12 (1) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955. The factual allegation made against the appellant was that he canvassed business for his wife. He was told that an enquiry will be held against him on the basis of that charge.

(2.) Shri H. T. Soares, Assistant Collector, Customs House, Cochin was appointed as the enquiry Officer. During the pedency of the enquiry an additional ground in support of the charge was served on the appellant to the effect that he himself was running the taxi service. After enquiry, the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the allegations made against the appellant were establsihed and consequently he was guilty of contravening Rule 12 (1) of the Central Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1955. The Enquiry Officer recommended appellant's removal from service. On the basis of that recommendation the Disciplinary Authority served on the appellant a notice to show cause why he should not be removed from service. The Appellant submitted his explanation. But the same was not accepted by the Disciplinary Authority. In the result the appellant was ordered to be removed from service.

(3.) The appellant challenged that order by means of a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Kerala. His writ petition was first heard by a single judge who dismissed the same and the order of the single Judge was affirmed by a Division Bench of that High Court. Hence this appeal.