SIVASUBRAMANIA IYER Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order of the Government compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service.The petitioner was a Sub -Magistrate in the Judicial Department of the State.While he was working at Ambalapuzha,complaints of corruption and misconduct were received against him and on a preliminary enquiry being conducted,the Government were satisfied that there were sufficient grounds for making a formal and public enquiry into the truth of the imputations and in exercise of their powers under section 2 of the Travancore Public Servants(Inquiries)Act XI of 1122,the Government ordered a public enquiry to be conducted by Sri P.D.Nandana Menon,the Enquiry Commissioner.Charges were framed and served on the petitioner to which he pleaded not guilty.

(2.) AFTER examining witnesses and making the enquiry in the manner provided by the rules,the Tribunal dealt with the various charges and found that all except charges 1 and 4 were not proved. Charge No.1 related to the receipt of illegal gratification of Rs.25 from one Abdul Azeez,examined as P.W.5 for releasing a lorry of his,which had been seized by the police and produced in court.The Tribunal found that P.W.5's evidence has been corroborated by his advocate P.W.1,but on the ground that P.W.5 was the person who actually gave the bribe and P.W.1 had advised him to offer the bribe,the evidence was not clinching enough,but there were strong grounds to think that the officer was corrupt. Charge No.1 related to the habitual receipt of illegal gratification by the petitioner for entertaining criminal complaints.On the evidence the Tribunal found that even though no specific instances had been proved circumstances showed that the officer was corrupt. He concluded his report by saying that there was every reason to suspect the integrity of the officer and that he is not a fit person to be continued in the Judicial Service and that he may be allowed to retire from service.

(3.) AFTER a careful examination of the explanation offered,the evidence adduced in the case and the findings recorded in the enquiry,the Government felt that even though no particular charge had been fully made out,there were strong ground to suspect the integrity of the officer and accepting the recommendations of the Tribunal that he should not be retained in service ordered that the petitioner be compulsorily retired from service with effect from 13th November 1959,the date on which he was,placed under suspension.Aggrieved with the order,the petitioner has filed this writ application to quash the order of the Government and to reinstate him in service.