JOHNSON Vs. SECRETARY, LAND REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was working as Revenue Inspector in the Land Revenue Department of the State. He was due to retire from service on superannuation on 31-12-1996. On 9-.12-1996, about 22 days before his retirement, he was arrested by the police in a criminal case. Consequent on the registration of a crime case, Case No.7/96 under S.7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by the Vigilance Police Station, Palakkad, the District Collector placed him under suspension by an order dated 12-12-1996. The case against the petitioner was that he, while working as Special Revenue Inspector, Land Tribunal, Mannarkad by misusing his position, demanded a sum of Rs. 1,0007-from one Sri.C.M. Varghese as illegal gratification in connection with the issue of Pattayam for an extent of 1.09 acres of land. The Special Judge, Vigilance, Kozhikode convicted the petitioner for charges under S.7, 13(l)(d)-and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, by judgment dated 21-10-1998. He was sentenced to undergo punishment of rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 10,0007- was imposed. The petitioner filed appeal against the said judgment before this Court as Crl.A.884/1998 arid got the sentence suspended pending appeal. While so, the appointing authority, namely the Commissioner of Land Revenue, Thiruvananthapuram by order dated 29-9-1999 (Ext. P1) dismissed the petitioner from service with effect from the date of suspension on the ground that his conduct which led to his conviction on a charge made it undesirable to his retention in service. It is this order which is impugned in this Original Petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that Ext. P1 order is passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, in that, no opportunity was given to the petitioner to show cause against the imposition of maximum penalty of dismissal from service. In support of the said contention, he relied on the decision of the Division Bench in State of Kerala v. Mohanan (2000 (1) KLT 129). The counsel further submitted that the petitioner was suspended for the alleged offence on 9-12-1996 when he had only 22 days more to retire from service on superannuation. He further submitted that if an opportunity was given to the petitioner to show cause against the imposition of the maximum penalty, he would have certainly brought to the notice all these facts to the authority, who issued Ext. P1 and requested for a lesser punishment. He accordingly submitted that Ext. P1 is non est in law. Smt. P.V.Asha, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that it is not the conviction of the petitioner in the criminal case but the conduct of the petitioner which led to the conviction which is decisive in the matter and that since the offence which led to the conviction is a serious matter involving the moral turpitude it is undesirable to keep the employee in service and therefore, even if an opportunity is to be given it is only an empty formality. The Government Pleader relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Kumaran v. State of Kerala (2000 (1) KLJ 247) and also the decisions of the Supreme Court in M.C.Mehta v. Union of India & Others (JT 1999 (5) SC 114), Trikha Ram v. V. K. Seth (AIR 1988 SC 285) and Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (AIR 1985 SC 1416).

(3.) THE question as to whether or not a person, who was convicted for a criminal offence, should have been heard by the disciplinary authority before imposing the punishment, again came up before the Supreme Court in Trikha Ram v. V.K.Seth (AIR 1988 SC 285) where the Supreme Court relying on its earlier decision in Tulsiram Patels case mentioned supra, held that no such opportunity is contemplated. The Supreme Court in Municipal Committee v. Krishnan (C.A.No.4120/96 dt.19.12.1996) 1996 (2) KLT SN 28, Case No.26) held that in cases involving corruption there cannot be any punishment other than dismissal and that any sympathy shown in such cases is totally uncalled for and opposed to public interest. The Supreme Court in M.C.Mehta v. Union of India & others (JT 1999 (5) SC 114) held that it is not always necessary for the Court to strike down an order merely because the order has been passed against the petitioner in breach of natural justice and that the Court can under Art.32 or Art.226 refuse to exercise its discretion of striking down the order, if such striking down will result in restoration of another order passed earlier in favour of the petitioner and against the opposite party, in violation of principles of natural justice or is otherwise not in accordance with law. It was further held that if on the admitted or indisputable factual position, only one conclusion is possible and permissible, the Court need not issue a writ merely because there is violation of principles of natural justice.