ABDULSALAM, M. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner Sri M.Abdulsalam is a Member of the Indian Administrative Service and he was functioning as First Member,Board of Revenue,Government of Kerala till 8th October 1971 on which date the State Government passed the order Ext.P -3 placing him under suspension pending completion of certain disciplinary proceedings initiated against him.The petitioner has brought this writ petition challenging Ext.P -3 as illegal,mala fide and ultra vires and praying that it should be quashed.

(2.) IN February,1971,the petitioner was holding the post of Excise Commissioner "Second Member,Board of Revenue "and had in that capacity conducted the Abkari auctions at various centres in different parts of the State.Certain complaints appear to have been received by the Minister for Revenue and Labour alleging irregularities in the conduct of the auctions held by the petitioner in Kottayam District on 5th February 1971 and 8th February 1971.After calling for a detailed report on the matter from the Board of Revenue the State Government framed certain charges against the petitioner on 10th June 1971 as per the memo of charges evidenced by Ext.P -1 and called upon the petitioner to show cause why disciplinary action as contem­plated under the All India Services(Discipline and Appeal)Rules,1969(hereinafter referred to as the Rules)should not be taken against him.Along with the charge memo the petitioner was also furnished with a detailed statement of allegations,a copy of which has been produced and marked in this court as an annexure to Ext.P -1.The petitioner sub­mitted two written statements by way of explanations to the charges on 12th July 1971 and 7th August 1971.It is there after that the Government passed the impugned order of suspension on 8th October 1971 wherein it is stated that the petitioner 's explanation to the charges was examined care­fully but was found to be unacceptable and that the Govern­ment consider that there are grounds for a detailed inquiry into the truth of the charges,which have been denied by the petitioner,under rule 8 of the Rules.It is further men­tioned in Ext.P -3 that having regard to the nature of the charges against the petitioner and the circumstances of the case Government considered that it was necessary to place him under suspension under rule 3 of the Rules till the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner are completed.

(3.) A counter -affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State Government by the Secretary to Government in the Public Department.A separate and more detailed counter -affidavit has also been filed by the 2nd respondent "Sri Baby John,Minister for Revenue.In the counter -affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent it has been averred that the charge memo Ext.P -1 was issued only after the report sent by the Board of Revenue concerning the subject -matter of the complaints had been carefully examined by the Government and on its being found that the matter required a fuller investigation after calling for the petitioner 's explanation to the various allegations.It is further submitted in the said counter -affidavit that the written statements submitted by the petitioner in explanation to the charges were carefully considered by the Government,the various aspects urged therein having been examined in detail by the Secretary,Taxes Department,the Law Secretary and the Chief Secre­tary to Government before submission to the 2nd respondent and to the Chief Minister for their orders.The petitioner 's explanation is stated to have been prima facie found to be unacceptable and since the charges levelled against him are of a grave nature,particularly having regard to the high office occupied by the petitioner and since an inquiry into those allegations would require evidence being adduced by the subordinate officers of the petitioner and by Abkari con­tractors,the Government found it necessary and desirable that the petitioner should not be allowed to continue in office pending the inquiry and that hence it was that the decision to place the petitioner under suspension was taken by the Government on 29th September 1971.Though the petitioner 's request to be allowed to proceed on leave could not be considered before the decision to suspend him was taken on the 29th September,since Ext.P -2 and Ext.P -2(a)were handed over by the petitioner only several days thereafter,it is averred in the counter -affidavit that the point whether the Government could permit the petitioner to go on leave had also,however,been considered before the for­mal order Ext.P -3 was issued.The allegation of mala fides put forward by the petitioner has been categorically denied in the counter -affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st res­pondent "State Government.It is asserted that the action was taken by the Government in good faith without being influenced by any extraneous motives or considerations.