RAMAKRISHNAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred by the Additional Director of Health Services, Thiruvananthapuram. While he was functioning as the Director of Health Services disciplinary proceedings were initialed against him for various charges. The main charge levelled against him is that he has obtained illegal gratification in transferring medical officers during general transfer effected in the year 1998. Certain other charges were also levelled against him. We need not go into all those charges in detail for the disposal of this case. Suffice it to say, on various charges levelled against him proceedings were initiated against him under the Government Servants Conduct Rules. A vigilance enquiry was also ordered by the Government. By order dated 8-7-1996 case was referred to the Vigilance Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram. Vigilance Tribunal conducted a detailed enquiry and submitted a report to the Government. During the enquiry, 61 witnesses were examined on the side of the prosecution and marked 106 documents. On the side of the petitioner, 7 witnesses were examined and marked 9 documents. During the enquiry PW.30, PW.37 and PW.38 were examined by the prosecution to establish that the accused accepted Rs.2000/- from PW.30 for giving a suitable posting to PW.38, who is the wife of PW.30 who was working as Lady Health Inspector at Primary Health Centre, Thariyode in Wayanad District. As per charge No.1 framed by the Government it was alleged that the petitioner obtained illegal gratification from Medical Officers and also through agents deputed by him. Eventhough the vigilance enquiry report contained the allegation of acceptance of Rs.2000/- from PW.30 as a motive for giving a transfer to PW.38 the charge was not specific and hence on the basis of submission made by the presenting officer, the Vigilance Tribunal invoked R.8(3) of the Kerala Civil Services (Vigilance Tribunal) Rules and altered the charge and included the charge as an additional charge which reads as follows:

(2.) VIGILANCE Tribunal on a consideration of the entire evidence adduced by both sides, found the petitioner guilty of charge No.2, 3 and additional charge No.4. Tribunal recommended to award the penalty of reduction in rank to the immediate lower post for a period of 3 years. Tribunal then submitted report to the Government on 20-8-1997. Government examined the report of the Vigilance Tribunal in detail and provisionally decided to accept the findings and recommendations of the Vigilance Tribunal. Accordingly show cause notice was served on the petitioner calling upon him to submit explanation, if any, regarding the provisional decision of the Government as per notice dated 30-9-1997. Petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on 5-11-1997. Government considered the explanation and consulted the Public Service Commission and decided to impose the penalty of reduction in rank to the immediate lower post for three years as per Order dated 25- 11-1998. Aggrieved by those orders the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. Learned single Judge did not grant the relief prayed for and dismissed the writ petition. Hence this appeal. When the matter came up for hearing we heard counsel for the appellant Sri.N. Sukumaran as well as learned Government Pleader Sri.C.K. Pavithran.

(3.) IN order to resolve the controversy it is necessary to examine the scope of R.8(3) of the Kerala Civil Services (Vigilance Tribunal) Rules, 1960 which is extracted below for easy reference: