LAKSHMANAN MENON Vs. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KUNNAMKULAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash an order,Ext.P.6,passed by Government,removing the petitioner from service,on appeal from an order Ext.P.4 passed by the Inspector General of Police reducing him in rank.An enquiry was made into certain allegations in a petition of complaint,presented against the petitioner by the Circle Inspector of Police,at the conclusion of which,he framed charges against the petitioner but did not comply with the rest of the procedure prescribed by Rule 17(2)of the Kerala Civil Services(Classification,Control and Appeal)Rules,1957,which admittedly governed the case,by requiring the petitioner after the charges were framed,"within a reasonable time to put in a written statement of his defence and to state whether he desired an oral enquiry or only to be heard in person."It was stated by the learned Government pleader,that on the charges being framed and communicated to the petitioner,he gave his explanation then and there,and was given a personal hearing in the course of which,he was specifically asked,whether he wished to adduce any oral or documentary evidence,when,as stated in the counter affidavit,the petitioner answered,that it was not possible for him to give any evidence.Whatever this means,the above is not in compliance with Rule 17(2)which insists upon the Authority framing the charges,to grant the delinquent,a reasonable time to put in a written statement of his defence and to state whether he desires an oral enquiry or not.The case of the petitioner is that he was called upon then and there to answer the charges,without being given time to answer them or being informed of his right to have a reasonable time,for making his defence.This is not sufficient compliance with Rule 17(2)and does in my opinion,also amount to a negation of reasonable opportunity within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution.As observed by the Supreme Court in Khem Chand v.The Union of India(AIR 1958 SC 300)reasonable opportunity must include "an opportunity to deny his guilt and establish his innocence,which he can only do,if he is told what the charges levelled against him are,and the allegations on which such charges are based " ;.A failure to give reasonable time to answer the charges and to ask whether he wants an oral enquiry or not,before dispensing with an enquiry,cannot be considered to be immaterial.In this case,no enquiry was held on the charges framed against the petitioner,and the only explanation was,that the petitioner,had expressed his inability to give any evidence,when he was asked in the course of the personal hearing,whether he wanted to adduce evidence.Though a mere violation of a Rule is not sufficient,I consider,that by the procedure adopted,reasonable opportunity under Article 311 had not been granted to the petitioner.In this view,the order Ext.P.6,removing the petitioner from service and also the order Ext.P.4 passed by the Inspector General of Police reducing him in rank,are both vitiated and are hereby quashed.This does not preclude the Authority concerned,from proceeding against the petitioner in due course of law.It may be pointed out,that it was agreed before me by counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader,that hereafter the enquiry ought to be held in accordance with the Kerala Police Departmental Inquiries,Punishment and Appeal Rules,1958.The petition is allowed without costs.