K RAMANKUTTY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question raised in this appeal is whether the order Ext. P1 passed by the 1st respondent, the State of Kerala, suspending the appellant "with immediate effect till the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him are completed," is liable to be set aside by this court in proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Subramonian Poti J. who heard the Original Petition, in which Ext. P1 order was challenged, considered the three grounds urged by the appellant, viz. , (i) that the order was passed malafide; " (ii) that the order was against the terms of R. 3 (1) of the All India Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1969 (for short the rules); and (iii) that there were no grounds which would justify the inference that it was necessary for the state government to place the appellant under suspension; and negatived all the three contentions and dismissed the petition. This appeal is from that judgment.

(2.) COUNSEL for the appellent, though he touched on the aspect of malafides, and lack of materials from which a reasonable inference is possible that it was either necessary or desirable that the appellant should be kept under suspension, gave up those contentions on the ground that the determination of these questions, though only for the purpose of deciding whether the suspension order should stand or not will necessarily involve the consideration of atleast certain aspects which are likely to arise for consideration before the Commission appointed under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, before whom the matter is now pending; and he, therefore, submitted that he will be satisfied by a direction that the commission will be untrammelled by the observations made by the learned Single judge on these two aspects of malafides and the existence or otherwise of materials to draw the inference that suspension was necessary or deserving. We think, this will be the proper course to adopt. It would be impossible to deal with these two aspects of the case without atleast indirectly referring to the charges that have been levelled against the appellant and without dealing with the question whether those charges are atleast prima facie sustainable. There are two reports, one of the appellant himself as to the propriety of acquiring a certain piece of land having an extent of 1750 acres for the Kerala agricultural University, which report appears to have been rejected by the government, and there is the report of Justice M. U. Isaac, as Commission, dealing with the same question and there are observations in this report, against the appellant. The appellant in his report has not spared the government, the party to which the Chief Minister belongs, the Chief Minister himself, and the Chief Secretary, not to mention the Special Officer, additional Secretary, and the Agricultural Production Commissioner. In fact, the charges against the appellant stem from these remarks made in his report and the manner in which he conducted the enquiry. There are some remarks against the appellant in the report of Justice Isaac and these remarks arise from the basic question as to whether the proposal to acquire the land that was first decided upon by Government was proper and whether these remarks are justified. We conceive that the remarks in the two reports will have to be considered by the Commission atleast indirectly in dealing with the charges against the appellant. We, therefore, make it clear that the observations and findings entered by the Single judge in the judgment under appeal are meant purely for the purpose of deciding whether grounds existed for interference under Art, 226 of the Constitution. We make it further clear that the observations and findings should not in any manner embarrass the Commission who has now been appointed under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, and that the Commission is free to deal with the questions arising before it untrammelled by any of the observations or findings in the judgment under appeal. We are not dealing with these aspects acceding to the request of the appellant's counsel to leave the matter open not because the appellant has no case that there is malafides or that the suspension order is unjustified; but because those are matters best dealt with in proceedings other than that under art. 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) THE Government therefore hereby order, under R. 8 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 that Shri K. K. Ramankutty be placed under suspension with immediate effect till the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him are completed 6 5. That there should be initiation of proceedings before an order of suspension is passed in the case has not been disputed before us. What is urged is that when the explanation of the alleged delinquent on the misconduct with which he was proposed to be charged was considered by the government and it was decided to take disciplinary action against the delinquent officer and when a Commission had also been appointed for the purpose, it has to be held that there has been initiation of proceedings; and simultaneous with such a decision, an order of suspension can also be passed against the delinquent officer. Para 2 of the order Ext. P1, that we have read, clearly shows that the Government have decided that an enquiry should be held under R. 8 of the Rules. THE Order also proceeded to state in para 3 as follows: Government have therefore decided to appoint Shri P. Govinda Menon, Retired Judge of the Kerala High Court as authority to enquire into the truth of the charges under the provisions of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. 1969-"