KRISHNAN NAIR Vs. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition came up before us on reference by one of us (Bhaskaran J.) who, when the matter was before the single Bench, thought that the contention raised by the petitioner that the publication of guides for the Public Service Commission examinations by an employee of the Kerala Public Service Commission (the Commission) would not attract the bar under R.48 and 58A of the Kerala Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1960 (the Conduct Rules), requires to be decided by a Division Bench.

(2.) The facts briefly stated are as follows:- The petitioner, while he was holding the post of Senior Grade Assistant in the office of the Commission (1st respondent) was placed under suspension pending disciplinary action against him as per its order No. SS. IW 4/73 dated 10-10-1973, a true copy of which is Ext. P-1. Ext. P-2 is the copy of the memo of charges dated 17-6-1974 issued to the petitioner by the Deputy Secretary, Vigilance (B) Department, Government of Kerala. Ext. P-3 is the copy of the written statement filed by the petitioner in answer to the allegations levelled against him in Ext. P-2 memo of charges.

(3.) The 2nd respondent, Government of Kerala, after having got an investigation conducted by the Crime Branch into the Charges levelled against the petitioner, decided as per G. O. Rt. No 69/75/Vig., Vigilance (B) Department, dated 1-4-1975, a true copy of which is Ext. P4, that the charges against the petitioner and the other officers, whose names were mentioned in Para.1 of that order, should be enquired into in detail under the Kerala Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1960 (the Tribunal Rules), and passed necessary orders in that behalf. Ext. P-5 is the copy of the additional written statement of defence submitted by the petitioner in the enquiry conducted by the Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal in Enquiry case No. 2 of 1975. On completion of the enquiry, the Tribunal in its proceedings dated 3-2-1977, a true copy of which is Ext. P-6, gave a finding that the petitioner was guilty of charge No. III and recommended that he should be compulsorily retired from service with effect from the date of suspension. Ext. P-6 was followed by a show cause notice dated 15-5-1977, a true copy of which is Ext. P-7, issued by the Commission to the petitioner; and Ext. P-9 is the copy of the explanation submitted by the petitioner. Ultimately the Commission by its order No. S. S.42/74 dated 22-9-1977, a true copy of which is Ext. P-9 decided to confirm its provisional decision to compulsorily retire the petitioner from service with effect from the date of his suspension, i. e., 10-10-1973. It is aggrieved by the proceedings culminating in Ext P-9 order of Commission that this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing Exts P-2, P-4, P-6 and P-9. Charge No. III in Ext P-2 memo of charges, found to have been proved against the petitioner by the Disciplinary Tribunal in Ext. P-6 proceedings reads as follows: