K.P. SUBASH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is a qualified Veterinary Doctor was appointed provisionally as a Veterinary Surgeon in the Animal Husbandry Department of the State Government on the 6th of March 1972. Pursuant to the said appointment he was put in charge of the Veterinary Dispensary in Thiruvampady at Calicut. The said dispensary was a newly sanctioned unit which was temporarily housed in two rooms behind a row of shops and the petitioner began functioning there with effect from 15-3-1972. According to the allegations contained in the writ petition the two rooms in which the dispensary was located were totally unsuited for the said purpose since there was hardly sufficient space therein even for accommodating the essential items of furniture and on this fact being brought by him to the notice of the District Veterinary Officer the petitioner had been directed to find out a suitable alternate building. It is also alleged by the petitioner that similar instructions had been given to him by the Director of Animal Husbandry also when the petitioner met the latter at Ernakulam. The petitioner states that acting on the strength of those instructions given to him by the superior officers he found out a suitable building having four rooms and a fairly big compound and intimated the District Veterinary Officer about the same by a letter dated 28-4-1972. Ex. P1 is said to be a true copy of the said letter. Apparently acting in anticipation of approval by the superior authorities the petitioner made preliminary arrangements to shift the dispensary to the newly proposed premises and informed the District Veterinary Officer about the same as per the letter Ex. P2 dated 1-5-1972. The dispensary itself, as already stated, was a newly sanctioned unit and it would appear that the formal inauguration of the unit by the Minister for Agriculture and Labour (3rd respondent) stood fixed for the 5th May 1972 and the said function was held at the premises where the dispensary had originally started functioning. It is alleged by the petitioner that even at the inauguration function the speakers stressed the necessity for shifting the dispensary to a more convenient building and after the meeting was over the District Veterinary Officer ] inspected the new premises proposed by the petitioner and orally instructed the petitioner to shift the dispensary to the new building after obtaining a consent letter from the owner of the building. It is said that on the basis of those instructions the petitioner shifted the dispensary to the new premises and started functioning there from 7th May 1972. Ex. P3 is said to be the copy of a letter sent by the petitioner to the District Veterinary Officer on 8th May 1972 intimating the latter about the factum of the shifting of the dispensary.

(2.) The further allegation in the writ petition is that on 6th May 1972 certain persons who were dissatisfied with the manner in which the inaugural function had been organised and conducted, held a public meeting in the vicinity of the I new premises selected by the petitioner for shifting the dispensary and at the said meeting they are said to have gone through a mock inauguration ceremony. According to the petitioner he had absolutely no connection whatever with the said meeting and knew about it only from newspaper reports. But, none the less, it is alleged that the 3rd respondent who appears to have felt insulted by the holding of the second meeting became greatly displeased with the petitioner on account of a wrong and baseless impression formed by him that the petitioner was instrumental in arranging the second meeting. It is alleged that acting on the aforesaid erroneous impression the 3rd respondent exerted pressure on the 2nd respondent the Joint Director of Animal Husbandry to take immediate action against the petitioner. Thereupon, it is said, the 2nd respondent visited the petitioner's dispensary on the 12th May 1972 along with the Administrative Officer and the District Veterinary Officer and questioned the petitioner about the circumstances of the transfer of the dispensary to the new building and the petitioner was directed by the communication Ex. P4 issued to him by the District Veterinary Officer on the same date to shift the dispensary back to the old premises. Thereafter, on 16-5-1972 the 2nd respondent passed the order Ex. P6 terminating the petitioner's services with immediate effect declaring also that the petitioner "should not be allowed to continue on duty in public service in public interest". The said order was served on the petitioner on 22nd May 1972. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner submitted before the Minister for Agriculture and Labour the representation Ex. P7 which he presented before the Minister in person at Trivandrum. It is alleged by the petitioner that the Minister told him on receiving the said representation that he was not prepared to modify the order Ex. P6. Hence the petitioner has come up to this Court with this writ petition seeking to quash Ex. P6.

(3.) Before proceeding to discuss the case further it is necessary to extract the full text of the impugned order.