MAYURANATHAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS original petition is by a Government servant, who has been placed under suspension pending enquiry on la charge of misconduct against him, for a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order to quash the order of his suspension. The misconduct charged against is that he had claimed and cashed travelling allowance falsely alleging that he had taken his wife and seven children with him when he was transferred to Trivandrum from Ernakulam, thereby having cheated the Government to the extent of Rs. 322 odd in July 1958, and that he had also submitted a bill for travelling allowance to the extent of Rs. 197 odd when he was transferred back to Ernakulam though that bill has not been cashed for want of sanction of the Comptroller. The Government has conducted some investigation through the Superintendent of Police, X-Branch, Trivandrum, and as a result thereof has come to the conclusion that there is prima facie case of misconduct against the petitioner, warranting action under the Kerala Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1960, and so has referred the matter to the tribunal for disciplinary proceedings to conduct an enquiry and forward a report to the Government with its findings and recommendations. The petitioner has been placed under suspension pending completion of the disciplinary proceedings against him by Ex. P. 1 order dated 3 May 1960. It is this order of suspension that is impugned in this writ petition.

(2.) THE grounds taken by the petitioner are: (1) the suspension is in fact a punishment entailing irreparable loss to the petitioner in that it has deprived him of his functions as a professor and an examiner for university examinations; it should not have been ordered without giving him an opportunity to show cause against the same; and that it has therefore offended the principles of natural justice; (2) the authority who can, under Rule 10 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960, place the petitioner under suspension, is the Government of Kerala; but Ex. P. 1 order is only the act of a Secretary to Government who cannot be identified with the Government; and, (3) as per the rule, suspension pending enquiry can be ordered only if it is found necessary in public interest, which aspect has not been adverted to in the instant case.

(3.) THE State has filed a counter-affidavit in this case explaining the circumstances under which the impugned order was made. It is stated therein that Rule 10 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960, empowers the Government to suspend a Government servant whenever a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or pending, that considering the position and status of the petitioner the charge against him is a grave one, that suspension is no punishment and no question of opportunity to show cause or of principles of natural justice arose in such a case and the impugned order was an order of the Government only communicated to the petitioner by the Secretary to Government.