N VASUDEVAN NAIR Vs. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was a clerk in the Taluk Office; Meenachil, who was dismissed as per Ext. P-3 order of the 2nd respondent, the Board of Revenue, Kerala, on charges of falsification of accounts, tampering with the records and misappropriation of Government money while he was a clerk in the Jenmikaram Section of the Taluk Office. That order was, on appeal, affirmed by Ext. P-4 order of the 1st respondent, the Government of Kerala. By O. P. No. 424 of 1958 he prayed for the issuance of a writ or certiorari quashing Exts. P. 3 and P-4 orders and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate him in service. But it was dismissed by Justice Sri M. S. Menon. This appeal is against that order.

(2.) The contention urged by the appellant is that the proceedings which culminated in Ext. P-3 order of his dismissal were conducted in a manner violative of all rules of natural justice and as such the impugned orders are unsustainable in law.

(3.) The admitted facts of the case are as follows:- On 10th September 1956 the petitioner was served with a memo of charges, which is produced in this case as Ext. P-1. It narrated, with details, four instances of misappropriation of Government money by the appellant attended with falsification of accounts and tampering with Government records. It stated how it was seen from the records that against a voucher by a Jenmi for Rs. 34-8-4, he drew a bill on treasury and collected Rs. 134-8-4 out of which the voucher amount alone was paid to the jenmi, how he appeared to have made correction, writings and interlineations in different inks in a voucher presented by another jenmi and thereby misappropriated another sum of Rs. 100, and like other charges. It further required him to put in his written statement of defence, if any, to the charges mentioned therein within a week of the receipt of the memo, and also to state whether he desired an oral enquiry or only to be heard in person on the matter. On 17th September 1956 the appellant applied for time to submit his written statement; and the Enquiry Officer granted him five days time. He did nothing further in the matter than applying for adjournments on 24th September 1956 and on 1st October 1956. On 19th October 1956 he was given another memo by the District Collector, Kottayam, requiring him to submit his explanation in two days; and in response thereto he submitted his written statement on 21st October 1956. A copy of that written statement is produced in this case as Ext. P-7. After referring to his receipt of Ext. P-1, he stated therein that the entries in the records were all clerical mistakes which he happened to commit on account of his inexperience and overwork in the job, that on detection of these mistakes by the auditors, he caused notices to be served on the jenmis to whom the overpayments were made, on receipt of which they have readily remitted back all their overdrawings; and that therefore he might be pardoned for his mistakes. But, he did not mention whether he wanted any oral enquiry or even a personal hearing on the matter as he was directed to state in Ext. P-1. On 5th December 1956 he was served with Ext. P-2 notice intimating him how the jenmis, to whom the overpayments were alleged to have been made, were examined by the Enquiry Officer when they denied the corrections, interlineations, etc., in the vouchers, and denied receipt or remittance back of any overpayments as alleged by the appellant, and other details of the evidence gathered against him. It recited further how the jenmis have told that the appellant went over to them and made them sign refund-chalans though they did not pay any amount to be refunded. It concluded with a finding that the falsification of accounts and misappropriation of Government money stand proved, and a direction to the appellant to show cause within 15 days why he should not be dismissed from service. The appellant submitted his explanation on 18th December 1956, a copy of which is produced in this case as Ext. P-8, in which he reiterated that he was innocent of the charges levelled against him although he happened to commit certain clerical errors for which he requested to be pardoned He characterised the statements given by the jenmis before the Enquiry Officer as mere extractions under threats by certain officers. Even so, he did not seek an opportunity to question or cross examine them or to examine anybody on his behalf. The explanation given by him in Ext. P-8 was found unsatisfactory by the Board of Revenue. Nonetheless the Board called him for a personal hearing on 25th March 1957. In response to that invitation, the appellant appeared before the Board and stated that he had nothing to add, by way of explanation to the charges against him, to what he had already submitted in Ext P-8. On 13th April 1957 the Board passed Ext. P-3 order: