MAHESH M Vs. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext. P-9 order of the first respondent, terminating his services. According to the petitioner, the order of dismissal has been passed without conducting an enquiry as contemplated by Rule 15 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960 ('CC& A Rules' for short). The petitioner was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in the 'physically handicapped quota' by order dated 10-8-2005 of the first respondent to the Wayanad District. The said order is Ext. P-1. Pursuant to Ext. P-1, he joined duty and started working. Subsequently, his services were regularised by an order dated 8-3-2006 of the first respondent, Ext. P-2. He was on probation thereafter, which was completed by him satisfactorily. Thereupon, as per Ext. P-3 order dated 12-3-2009, his probation was declared.

(2.) Meanwhile, an organisation by name 'Handicapped Association of India' filed a writ petition before this Court making the petitioner also a party alleging that the appointments of several persons including the petitioner under the 'physically handicapped quota' were illegal. As per Ext. P-4 judgment, the said writ petition was dismissed holding that a public interest petition was not maintainable with respect to a service matter. However, according to the petitioner, undaunted by the dismissal of their writ petition, the 'Handicapped Association of India' continued their agitation through television as well as the print media. Probably, influenced by such propaganda, the petitioner alleges that he was served with Ext. P-5 charge-sheet accompanied by Ext. P-5 (a) memo of charges. The petitioner was also placed under suspension.

(3.) The allegation against the petitioner is that he had obtained a Certificate of Disability feigning physical disability. On the strength of the said certificate, he had secured an appointment to the Government service. Therefore, he was asked to explain why disciplinary action should not be initiated against him. The petitioner thereupon submitted Ext. P-6 explanation dated 13-9-2011. However, since his explanation was not satisfactory, the petitioner was directed to show cause why the punishment of dismissal from service should not be imposed on him. The petitioner submitted Ext. P-8 explanation disputing the allegations levelled against him, and pointing out that he was entitled to the benefit of an enquiry as contemplated by Rule 15 of the CC&A Rules before any disciplinary action was initiated against him. The said explanation was considered by the first respondent and by Ext. P-9 order dated 7-12-2011, the petitioner has been dismissed from service. This writ petition is filed challenging the said order of dismissal.