RAGHAVAN Vs. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT R M S

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, while he was working as a Sorter, SRO Cannanore, was served with a memorandum dated 16-2-1971 issued by the 1st respondent, the Senior Superintendent, R MS, Ernakulam Division, copy of which is Ext. P1, informing him that it was proposed to take action against him under R.16 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (the Rules); it was alleged in the statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour enclosed, that the petitioner while working as Head Sorter, Cannanore Sorting/2 on 15-12-1970, had exhibited utter indifference, gross negligence and lack of devotion to his duties in that (i) he had furnished incorrect information in his daily report suppressing facts; (ii) he had failed to maintain discipline inside the office; (in) he had furnished false information to the police; and (iv) he had demanded false reasons from Sri. Karunakaran for being relieved for getting medical aid. Ext. P2 is the copy of the representation dated 27-2-1971, denying the charges levelled against him, submitted by the petitioner. Ext. P3 is the copy of the memorandum dated 26-3-1973 issued by the 1st respondent informing the petitioner that an enquiry was proposed to be held to go into the articles of charge stated in Annexure.I thereto. Ext. P3(a) is the copy of the addendum dated 27-4-1973 adding the following to Ext. P3 memorandum dated 26-3-1973:

(2.) Though in the writ petition the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing both Exts. P7 and P 10, the attack during the course of his argument by Shri O. V. Radhakrishnan, the counsel for the petitioner, was confined to Ext. P 10 order, which, he submitted, was not sustainable in law. His main argument is that the reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a specified period, being a major penalty as provided in clause (v) of R.11 of the Rules, in proceedings initiated under R.16 of the rules for inflicting one of the minor punishments falling within clauses (i) to (iv) of the said rule (R.11), it could not be inflicted by the 2nd respondent while disposing of an appeal filed by the petitioner.

(3.) R.11 of the Rules at the beginning states: Penalties: