K. M. MOHAMMED Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner before us was a Divisional Forest Officer. He retired on 31-5-1988. Ext. P1 charge memo was served on the petitioner on 30-7-1987. The charge memo was served on the petitioner on the ground of irregularities noticed in the departmental checking of wind fallen and dead trees. The case against the petitioner from the charge is that the petitioner "deliberately organised charging hand dragging in the timber working keeping thereby departmental elephant power under utilised causing heavy loss of Rs. 1,73,000/- to the Department with malafide intentions".

(2.) Petitioner submitted his written statement of defence on 29-8-1987. The explanation was found to be not satisfactory. Government, accepting the recommendation of the Chief Conservator of Forests, ordered to conduct an enquiry under R.15(2) of the Kerala Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). Then the enquiry did not proceed further and the petitioner was allowed to retire on 31-5-1988, Ext. P 2 was issued framing charges and stating clearly that an enquiry under R.15(2) of the Rules should be conducted against the petitioner. Further it is stated in Ext. P2 that the inquiry authority will complete its enquiry within three months and submit report to the Government.

(3.) By Ext. P3, petitioner submitted that the charges framed against him are unsustainable. He has also submitted that the authority making the enquiry has got a closed mind and there will not be a proper enquiry. From Ext. P 3, it is seen that his main attack was against the Inquiry officer and he said that if the Government deems it necessary to conduct a formal enquiry, another officer has to be appointed as the inquiry authority. Ext. P3 representation was turned down by the Government. It is said that there is absolutely no basis for the fear of the petitioner that the inquiry authority is likely to be biased against him. Again, petitioner filed a representation before the Minister for Forests. There also he repeated his complaint against the inquiry officer and submitted that he has got a serious apprehension that he will not be getting justice from the inquiry officer. Further he submitted that he has retired from service on superannuation and so urgent orders in the matter may be passed. The representation before the Minister also failed and the petitioner was served with a notice on 20-7-1990 staling that for enquiry, he has to appear before the inquiry officer on 1-8-1990 in the office of the Conservator of Forests, Trichur. This notice is Ext. P7. When he received Ext. P7, he approached this Court with the Original Petition.