C K SIDHIQUE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in these two writ petitions are co- delinquents in a disciplinary action. Both were officers working in a Sales Tax Check Post on duty on a day when the Vigilance conducted a surprise check. THE vigilance seized some unaccounted money from the petitioners from various parts of the office of the Check Post. All the persons on duty were proceeded against together on the ground that those were unaccounted money kept by the officers obtained as illegal ratification. THE Vigilance did not find the case suitable for prosecution. THErefore they recommended departmental action. THE Government referred the matter to the Vigilance Tribunal for enquiry. THE Vigilance Tribunal ultimately entered the following finding:

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent where the Government seeks to support the impugned order. According to the Government, although no elaborate reasons have not been stated in the impugned order, the Government has specifically stated that the case was examined again on the strength of the advice of the P.S.C and Government have decided to accept the advice of the Commission, which would show that the Government has actually considered the entire issue in the light of the advice of the Commission and thereafter only it was decided to revert back to the original punishment.

(3.) I am of opinion that the government ought to have, after originally deciding to impose a lesser punishment, before deciding to accept the advice of the Commission, given some reasons as to why they decided to accept the advice of the Commission. The impugned order does not contain any such consideration. In the above circumstances Ext.P6 order to that extent is quashed. The Government is directed to reconsider the issue in the light of the above findings and the findings in the above judgment and pass fresh orders. If the Government after considering finds that the more appropriate punishment is the lesser one, comply with the procedure of reverting back to the P.S.C. and pass fresh orders accordingly. The said procedure shall be taken up and completed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above.